Sitting of 19 June 2003

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

  DEATH OF A MEMBER
  Mr. Speaker: I regret to have to report to the House the death of Paul Daisley, Esq., Member for Brent, East. I am sure that Members on all sides of the House will join me in mourning the loss of a colleague and in extending our sympathy to the hon. Member's family and friends.
  Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Oral Answers to Questions
  ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

    International Whaling Commission
    John Barrett: If she will make a statement on the outcomes of the annual International Whaling Commission meeting in Japan. [120184]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): As you know, Mr. Speaker, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is unable to be present today due to her attendance at the Agriculture Council in Luxembourg.
    The outcomes of the 54th annual meeting of the International Whaling Commission, held in Japan in May 2002, were detailed in the letter of my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), of 10 July 2002, a copy which was placed in the Library.
    This year's annual meeting, which is being held in Berlin, ends today. I will report on the outcome in due course, but I am pleased to announce to the House that, so far, the UK has achieved all its key objectives, including maintaining the moratorium on commercial whaling and successfully adopting the so-called Berlin initiative. That UK co-sponsored resolution reinforces conservation as a primary function of the IWC and will
    482
    help to give greater focus to the conservation agenda. The conservation groups have described that achievement as historic.
    John Barrett: I welcome the Minister to his new post. I submitted this question before the reshuffle and was told that it might be answered by the Secretary of State for Wales.[Interruption.]
    The UK Government have a good track record on whale conservation and promoting whale sanctuaries, and the progress at Berlin in the past week has been good. However, not all countries will abide by the agreements. What positive action can the Government take to bring those rogue states into line?
    Mr. Bradshaw: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his warm welcome and for his recognition of the positive role played by the Government and by my predecessor, now the Minister for the Environment, who has an excellent track record and has achieved so much on this issue. The UK Government will continue to work very hard with other pro-conservation Governments around the world and the relevant non-governmental organisations to ensure that those rogue states, as the hon. Gentleman calls them, come into line and properly address this very important issue of conservation and cruelty.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: What about the plight of small cetaceans? Randall Reeves, who is the chair of the IUCN specialist cetacean group, says that they
    "are dying in droves every year in fishing nets",
    that they
    "lose out in the shadow of the whaling controversy"
    and that the
    "scale of the cetacean by-catches problem was highlighted in a recent survey of boats fishing off north-west Spain."
    The number of common and bottle-nose dolphins is now unsustainable. This is a real problem.
    Mr. Bradshaw: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. This is a very serious problem. The specific resolution on by-catches that the UK co-sponsored at Berlin has not yet been discussed, but the Berlin initiative itself should have a positive impact on the problem that he outlines. He may be interested to know that the Whale and Dolphin Conservative Society has already called the Berlin initiative
    "a positive step for the world's cetaceans",
    and that the World Wide Fund for Nature went even further by describing it as an
    "historic day for cetacean conservation".
    I should also add that the trials that the Government have undertaken off the south-west of England to try to prevent the problem of the by-catch of small cetaceans have proved very successful and we shall try to roll them out next year, as well as talking to fellow EU members to encourage them to initiate similar trials.
    Norman Baker: I also welcome the Minister to his post. He has got an easy start because the Government have a very good record on whaling, and I have paid tribute to them for that for many years. However, does he share my concern about the

    483
    increasing use of sonar technology in the oceans, particularly for military purposes, which deafens and kills whales? There have been examples of that in the Bahamas and elsewhere. In particular, will he reflect on the fact that the US Administration, under President Bush, have apparently given permission for the navy to use sonar technology in 75 per cent. of the world's oceans, which could have serious consequences for the whale population? Will he raise that with the American authorities and the IWC?
    Mr. Bradshaw: I would be happy to do so. I admit that I know a great deal less about this subject than the hon. Gentleman, as I have been in the job for only a few days, but I understand that the primary responsibility for the issue falls to the Ministry of Defence. I will ask my ministerial colleagues for their reaction to his remarks.

    Agricultural Research (Aberystwyth)
    Mr. Win Griffiths: What plans she has to visit Aberystwyth to discuss agricultural research projects being undertaken there. [120185]
    The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Elliot Morley): Sadly, I have no plans at present to visit Aberystwyth.
    Hon. Members: Shame.
    Mr. Griffiths: Shock, horror! I understand that my hon. Friend's Department finances quite a lot of research at Aberystwyth. In particular, will the Department consider—I hope that it will—putting even more money into research on grass for use in arid areas, as that is of particular relevance to many parts of the developing world?
    Mr. Morley: I certainly agree that a great deal of important work has been done at the Institute of Grassland and Environmental Research at Aberystwyth, which is recognised by the Department for Environment. Food and Rural Affairs. My hon. Friend might be interested to know that over the last three years we have funded research at Aberystwyth to the tune of around £6 million for each of those three years. I recognise that it is doing important work on grassland types, which will have a great deal of helpful applications, particularly in arid areas.
    Mr. Michael Jack: First, I congratulate the Minister on his promotion and on having had the burden of fishing lifted from his shoulders. He will understand that Aberystwyth's research work is much bolstered by the scientific output of Horticulture Research International. To that end, is his Department yet able to decide its future grant funding arrangements for HRI and the application from East Malling for support, both of which are central to the future of HRI and its marriage with Warwick university?
    Mr. Morley: The right hon. Gentleman, who knows the history of HRI and who knows about the existing complications, is absolutely right about HRI's important role. All I can say at the moment is that we are
    484
    trying to find a way forward on its funding problems, and we recognise the important role that it plays in horticulture and the value in which it is held.

    Fishing Industry
    Mr. Michael Weir: What recent discussions she has had with ministerial colleagues on the fishing industry. [120186]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): DEFRA Ministers meet ministerial colleagues, including those in the devolved Administrations, regularly to discuss the fishing industry.
    Mr. Weir: I thank the Minister for that answer. I am not sure whether I should congratulate or commiserate with him on becoming Minister with responsibility for fishing. In his discussions with colleagues, however, has he had a chance to discuss the clause in the new draft constitution of the European Union that would transfer full control of fisheries to Brussels? Such a move would be disastrous for Scottish fishing communities already reeling from the last Fisheries Council in December, and the clause has been opposed by both the Scottish Parliament and by the Scrutiny Committee on European Legislation in a report this week. Will the Government stand up for the fishing communities of Scotland and ensure that the clause is removed at the forthcoming intergovernmental conference?
    Mr. Bradshaw: Sadly, I have not yet had a chance to discuss that specific issue with colleagues, but I will be going straight from the Chamber to spend most of the afternoon in discussions with colleagues and interested parties from the fishing industry. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is right, however, because the Convention recommends no extension of EU powers or competencies over fishing. Marine biological resources have been the exclusive competence of the EU since 1979. Scotland's First Minister made that clear in his letter of clarification of 10 June to John Swinney, which I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has seen. If he has not seen it, I have a copy that he can have afterwards.
    Mrs. Joan Humble: First, I add my congratulations to the Minister on taking up a post that is very important to my constituents in Fleetwood. They would want me to draw to his attention the special needs of the Irish sea as a mixed fishery, because they have serious concerns about some of the recent pronouncements from Brussels. I therefore take this opportunity to put in an early bid to the Minister to come to speak to the fishermen of Fleetwood so that he can hear directly not only their concerns but their positive attitude to joint working with Government scientists and to work across the Irish sea with other communities, both to safeguard the fish stocks and to develop a sustainable fishing industry.
    Mr. Bradshaw: I am grateful for that kind invitation from my hon. Friend, who is a doughty and effective fighter for her local fishing industry. I am going to try to

    485
    get around to as many centres of our fishing industry as quickly as possible, as I am critically aware that I follow a Minister with up to 15 years' experience, and I have a lot to learn. I am sure that the concerns that she expressed, which we share, about the proposals as they would affect the Irish sea will be high on the agenda when I listen to what her fishermen have to say.
    Mr. Richard Bacon: Congratulations to the Minister on taking control of the nation's fish. I only regret that there are so few fish left because of the disaster of the common fisheries policy. Does he agree that the time has now come to re-impose the 200-mile limit for this nation to take control again of its own fish resources, especially as his distinguished predecessor confirmed recently in the European Scrutiny Committee that that would be lawful?
    Mr. Bradshaw: No, I do not. My hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment has said that he did not say that.
    The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Elliot Morley): I said the opposite.
    Mr. Bradshaw: Withdrawal from the common fisheries policy would be neither practical nor sensible. It would entail negotiating a whole series of bilateral agreements with other EU members. I would have thought that there would be a consensus that we need a common European policy on fisheries because fish move around. The way to improve the common fisheries policy is to negotiate improvements, which the Government have an excellent record on doing.
    Lawrie Quinn: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his new brief and give him a warm welcome. When he held discussions with ministerial colleagues, he probably noted that the former Parliamentary Secretary was regrettably unable to come to an engagement at the Whitby fishing school, which is at the heart of the North sea fishery. When he undertakes his tour of the coasts, will he come to Whitby and meet the fisher-people of the community of Whitby and Scarborough? I hope that he will prove to be as much of a fishermen's friend as his predecessor.
    Mr. Bradshaw: I do not promise to perform miracles where my predecessor did not manage to, but I am critically aware of the potential pitfalls of leaving anywhere out when I make my tour of the country to visit fishermen.
    Ann Winterton: May I, too, welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new position? He will already know that competence for UK fisheries policy lies entirely with the European Union. However, will he confirm that if competence for that policy were repatriated to the United Kingdom, it would require legislation in Parliament? If further devolution took place—for example the Scottish Executive being given responsibility for the Scottish industry—will he confirm that legislation would also be required in the House?
    Mr. Bradshaw: Forgive me, but I am not absolutely sure whether legislation would be required in the House.
    Ann Winterton: Say yes.
    Mr. Bradshaw: Well, the hon. Lady says that I should say yes but I would rather be completely sure of my ground before doing that. However, there would have to be a change to a European Union treaty, which would require unanimous agreement.
    Mr. Alistair Carmichael: May I, too, add my words of welcome to the Minister and tell him that he has a hard act to follow? When he starts his tour of fishing communities, I hope that he will start with those at the centre of fishing areas—those in Shetland, of course. Thereafter he may work out to the periphery. He will be aware that the European Commission recently gave an unhelpful ruling on schemes operating in my constituency and elsewhere regarding the purchase and leasing of quota. Will he assure me that he will speak to his colleagues in the Scottish Executive at an early stage as he comes to terms with his brief with a view to establishing from the Commission exactly what can be done to bring the schemes within state aid rules?
    Mr. Bradshaw: I am aware of the issue in the hon. Gentleman's constituency in which proposals have fallen foul of EU state aid rules. I shall examine the implications of that and discuss them with my colleagues in the Scottish Executive and interested parties in the industry. It sounds as though I shall be spending the summer on a grand tour.

    GM Crops
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: What recent assessment she has made of the potential advantages of GM crops. [120187]
    The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Elliot Morley): Advocates of genetically modified crops argue that they offer a wide range of potential benefits if they are developed and used wisely. We have commissioned a study of both the costs and benefits as part of the national GM dialogue. This will be published next month. As part of our commitment the public will have the opportunity to consider both sides of this issue.
    Mrs. Campbell: I welcome the Minister to his new post and congratulate him on his promotion. I hope that he will find GM crops a little more comfortable than fishing. Is he aware of the work of Bengali scientists to develop a protein-rich potato that could improve the diets of 6 million children who are currently malnourished? Does he agree that that is a good reason why we should not throw the whole idea of GM out of the window and that GM crops have potential advantages that must be exploited?
    Mr. Morley: I thank my hon. Friend for her comments and know of her expertise in the subject. I am aware of that research work. It shows why it is important that we consider each case on its merits. We consider very carefully the potential benefits of GM

    487
    crops and, indeed, benefits are claimed for that potato. It is also important, however, to consider the arguments in the round. For example, increasing the amount of pulses may result in more protein improvement in India than modified potatoes. We have to weigh up such considerations. My hon. Friend puts her finger on how important it is to look at the arguments fairly and not to take a polarised position on one side or the other.
    Mr. Robert Key: May I warmly welcome the Minister to his new role and urge him to maintain scientific objectivity before the Government come to a conclusion? In the light of the extraordinary question from his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher), to the Prime Minister yesterday, does he agree that GM foods are the most trialled and tested ever in the history of mankind? Given that many millions of people have been eating those foods for the best part of a decade with not one single case of an adverse reaction, does he really think that human feeding trials are the answer? Even if the right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton were to volunteer, would it be ethical?
    Mr. Morley: It is important that we question science and look at it carefully. In that respect, my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher) is right to apply precautionary principles. It is a privilege to follow him in the role that he carried out with such distinction over many years. However, I come back to the point that we must approach the issue on the basis of good science. We need to examine the claims and consider GM foods on a case-by-case basis. The effects on people must also be taken into account.
    The matter has been considered by the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes. It was also examined in the detailed Food and Agriculture Organisation study in 2000. In addition, our Food Standards Agency takes into account the potential effects of toxins and allergies. We cannot ignore those issues. They do not necessarily rule out GM foods, but we cannot ignore them.
    Mr. Michael Meacher: May I strongly support my hon. Friend, my successor, in what he said about the need to follow good science? However, since the science indicates that there is still far too much uncertainty about the long-term impacts of GM, as there was in the case of BSE; since science has not yet devised co-existence rules that can fully protect organics against cross-contamination; since there have been no scientific trials of the long-term health or biochemical impacts on human beings of eating GM-free food; and since neither science nor EU labelling rules have yet found a way to guarantee consumers' rights to eat GM-free food for those who wish to, is it not clear that on scientific grounds—I emphasise on scientific grounds—it is not safe, necessary or desirable to commercialise GM crops at this stage in this country until far more testing has been carried out?
    Mr. Morley: I quite agree with my right hon. Friend that more work needs to be done. There are unknowns and more research needs to be put in place. He is right about labelling because whatever the future of GM foods, it is important that consumers have information
    488
    and choice. He is also right about the need to look at the implications of GM foods in every sense. We need mechanisms in relation to control, potential liability and certainly in terms of co-existence, but those are not yet in place.
    Mr. David Lidington: First, may I welcome the Minister of State to his new and promoted responsibilities? I also welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw), to the Department's team. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher). The Opposition did not always agree with him when he spoke in a ministerial capacity, but his commitment to the environment was undoubted and his courtesy was unfailing in all Commons exchanges. We certainly appreciated that.
    Will the Minister now acknowledge both that the Government's great debate on GM crops has amounted so far to six meetings within the space of 10 days, none of which have been held in the main arable areas of England or Scotland, and that the debate will have concluded months before the publication of the Government's own crop trials? Will he give an undertaking that, before the Government announce whether they will give approval to the commercial growing of GM crops, they will not only publish the results of their crop trials but subject those conclusions to widespread debate, criticism and discussion?
    Mr. Morley: That is the whole idea of the dialogue. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman is dismissive of the fact that the debate has been set up by an independent group with an independent chair. The fact that we are talking about it now demonstrates that it has been successful in promoting discussion in this country about the pros and cons of GM foods, which is the intention. I was a bit surprised by what the hon. Gentleman said about arable areas—the issue of GM foods goes far beyond simply farming, and is an issue for consumers, the environment and the wider community. It is quite right that debate on that is as wide and accessible as possible. All the information that we have will, of course, be put into the public domain and will be made available in a transparent process. Whatever the outcome, there is no intention whatever to give blanket approval to commercial planting—every application must be treated on its individual merits.
    Geraint Davies: I, too, welcome my hon. Friend to his new position. Is he concerned about the possible transmission of GM spores on farm vehicles, following research in France on the contamination of organic production and the reliability of food labelling on foods which claim to be GM-free at a time when consumers increasingly want to consume organic food and are reluctant to take the plunge on GM, perhaps with good reason?
    Mr. Morley: The need to ensure that organic farmers are not subject to cross-contamination from GM crops is a serious issue, and we are giving a great deal of thought to it. It is an important consideration in the coexistence rules that have to be developed. My hon. Friend is right that we have to look at the potential

    489
    spread of GM seeds and pollen. That applies to any kind of seed and pollen, but the issue has to be taken into account in the evaluation and, indeed, the current debate.
    Andrew George: May I congratulate the Minister on swapping one poisoned chalice for another? Will he not admit that the Government, although perhaps not him or his distinguished predecessor, made up their mind in favour of GM years ago, and the public debate is merely window-dressing? In 1999, the DTI invested public funds
    "to improve … the take-up of biotechnology applications"
    across the country. The sum that was invested was 26 times greater than the amount of money being spent on the public debate. Why does the Minister not admit that, although consumers do not want the stuff, although it could give biotech companies a stranglehold on the whole food chain, and although we need to base decisions on sound science rather than quick science, the Government, but perhaps not him, are already in the pocket of the GM lobby?
    Mr. Morley: I absolutely reject that claim. I have been involved in the discussion of GM on and off since 1997, when I was a Minister in the then Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government have always expressed the need for caution. I repeat that we should not rule out new developments on the basis of prejudice. We must evaluate the scientific arguments for and against, and look at each case on its individual merits. We should not take a polarised position which, I have to say, is unusual for the hon. Gentleman.

    Registered Agricultural Holdings
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: What steps she is taking to arrest the decline in the number of registered agricultural holdings; and if she will make a statement. [120188]
    The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Elliot Morley): The Government launched their strategy for sustainable farming and food in England last December to promote a competitive and efficient farming and food sector. A similar strategy was published by the Welsh Assembly Government in November 2001. The structure of the farming industry will be determined by the markets and the commercial judgment of individual farmers and growers.
    Mr. Llwyd: I, too, congratulate the Minister on his elevation and you, Mr. Speaker, on your well earned doctorate. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear"]
    Unfortunately the Minister did not answer the question that I tabled when I asked what was being done to arrest the decline in agricultural holdings. A written reply that I have just received states that in 1997, there were 77,829 holdings in England whereas in 2002, there were 69,000. The position is worse in Wales, where the number has decreased from 19,300 to 16,800—a drop of 13 per cent. That has a disproportionate effect on the rural economy of Wales. Will the Minister examine the current structure and consider, for example, assistance
    490
    for new entrants and smaller farms? He shakes his head, but nothing has been done in the past 10 years. It is complacent of the Government simply to talk about marketing when farms are lost daily.
    Mr. Morley: But those changes have been happening since farming began. The trend towards amalgamation has been accelerating since the 1930s; there is nothing new about it. It is difficult for the Government to set any industry in stone and say that it will never change again under any circumstances. It is not possible to do that.
    All sorts of changes have occurred in farming. The same farmer may have several holdings that he has consolidated; that does not necessarily mean that farms have disappeared. I accept that there has been a decline—I would not want to pretend otherwise—but that has been in progress for a long time. However, other changes have occurred, with new people, who may have other sources of income, taking on smaller farms. They bring innovation and new ideas.
    Farming is dynamic: it changes and adapts. We have a role to play in that through the help that we give farming—in research and development, environmental or marketing support. However, we cannot say that farming will never change: that is up to the drivers of society, markets and, indeed, farmers.
    Mr. Huw Edwards: But does my hon. Friend agree that local authorities and other public bodies can recognise the importance of farming in rural economic development? Will he join me in congratulating Monmouthshire county council, which recently decided to invest in a new livestock market that will serve not only south-east Wales but the border areas of England.
    Mr. Morley: I certainly join my hon. Friend in congratulating Monmouthshire county council on its work. We can do a great deal to support local sourcing, not only through supporting our farmers in the rural economy but in reducing food miles. There are sound arguments for that.

    Locally Grown and Produced Food
    Gregory Barker: What steps she is taking in the EU to enable the preferential procurement by public sector bodies of locally grown and produced food. [120189]
    The Minister for Rural Affairs (Alun Michael): We encourage public sector bodies to adopt purchasing policies that allow local growers and food producers the opportunity to compete for business. Local sourcing is an element of our sustainable food procurement initiative.
    Gregory Barker: I thank the Minister for that answer, but it did not address the question about what he is doing in the EU. We lag way behind France and Italy in local procurement. I draw the Minister's attention to the excellent report, "Relocalising the Food Chain", which Cardiff university produced. It found that
    "barriers imposed by EU procurement legislation, while considerably restricting purchasing discretion are not insurmountable."

    491
    Will the Minister give a clear and quantifiable pledge to increase the amount of locally produced and procured food in our schools, hospitals and other public bodies, and thereby dispel the Government's reputation for lacking imagination and ambition on local procurement?
    Alun Michael: The hon. Gentleman has imagination because he has managed to answer his question. I am delighted that he has done that. The EU rules do not prevent local procurement. It is a question of engagement between farmers, food producers and their market. We are trying to help the industry to understand the way in which to get into that market. We have issued guidance, which is publicly available, so the hon. Gentleman can read it. We have provided case studies and advice, and we shall continue to do that to enable people to understand the way in which they can help local producers to bid and succeed. We also need to help the producers to get into the market and supply what their market wants.
    Mr. David Kidney: As the rest of the ministerial team have been congratulated, may I offer my congratulations to my right hon. Friend on still being in his job? Does he accept that cheap and prepackaged foods are often stuffed full of fat, salt or sugar, and that that is contributing to an alarming increase in the incidence of obesity, diabetes and ill-health? Is there not a responsibility across government to establish rules for procurement—within EU rules—that would require more fresh, wholesome food? Such rules would obviously contribute to a greater degree of local production and supply of food.
    Alun Michael: I thank my hon. Friend for his congratulations; I am delighted still to be in this role and to be a member of this very fine learn. He is absolutely right: it is possible to set procurement standards that enable fresh local produce to have the best chance of succeeding. He is right to place an emphasis on health and good quality, but we cannot demand that local produce should be included. As the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker) suggested in his supplementary question, however, there are ways of encouraging good quality, fresh and locally produced food to come into the public service. That is the way in which we should approach this.
    David Burnside: The Minister must realise that public sector bodies have a problem, in that they have to buy according to best value. When I walk into Tesco's supermarket in Ballymoney, I know whether the lamb, chicken, vegetables and loaf of bread that I am buying have been produced locally in Northern Ireland, because they are labelled. Could the Minister direct all public sector bodies in the health service and education to have the same labelling policy in their restaurants and canteens, so that it would be quite obvious which products had been locally produced? That would lead to a massive increase in demand for such products from the customers. Does the Minister agree with that constructive proposal?
    Alun Michael: There is a variety of ways in which the choice available to consumers—in public organisations
    492
    and elsewhere—can be extended. There are two halves to the equation, however. The first involves ensuring that public sector bodies know that they are not precluded from designing their procurement policies in such a way as to promote fresh and local produce, to give it a fair chance while not excluding other bidders. The second involves encouraging UK producers to understand the service that they are providing and to be more competitive through greater collaboration, more co-operative working, and having a greater understanding of the public procurement approach. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that informing people about what they are purchasing and what their choices are is an important part of that.

    Departmental Rebranding
    Mr. David Heath: If she will make a statement on the purpose of the rebranding of her Department. [120190]
    The Minister for Rural Affairs (Alun Michael): A lot of work has gone into making DEFRA an efficient organisation that serves the public interest and is focused on the needs of its customers. [Interruption.] Conservative Members may chortle, but this is not something that the Conservative Government ever sought to do. We seek to be a Department that is modern, professional and forward-looking. We want that to be reflected by a new sense of confidence among our staff, and for the public to see the effects of change and modernisation. The rebranding exercise is just one part of that work, helping to establish a new identity and explain the role and purpose of the new Department.
    Mr. Heath: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm the figures extracted by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker), which show that the rebranding exercise cost £329,000, and that a further £200,000 was spent on putting up new signs? The right hon. Gentleman says that extensive research has helped DEFRA to develop a better understanding of what its customers expect from it. Is it not the case, however, that customers expect something other than invisibility in matters concerning the environment, and something other than disengagement in matters concerning agriculture? Do they not also expect the Department not to waste half a million pounds of taxpayers' money?
    Alun Michael: The public expect those things from us, and that is what we are trying to give them. There is a little disingenuousness in the hon. Gentleman's question. The work to which he refers includes scoping the project, producing briefing and listening to consumers. It has been suggested that that money has gone into producing a new logo, and I would like to correct that. The direct cost of the new DEFRA logo was £24,000. It is part of a change in the culture and the capacity to deliver on the part of the Department.
    Paddy Tipping: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the review being conducted by Lord Haskins could inevitably lead to further rebranding of the Department? Does my right hon. Friend accept, first, that all change causes uncertainty and that it is important to complete the process as quickly as

    493
    possible; and secondly, that although policy and delivery may be different, it is important that, even if they are separated, there are means to communicate and link up those two aims?
    Alun Michael: My hon. Friend makes a good point. First, any reorganisation—any uncertainty—causes problems because it takes people's eyes off the ball of delivery. We will do all that we can to avoid that. Secondly, on the link between policy and delivery, the wrong policy well delivered is not good news, nor is the right policy badly delivered. We need good policy and good delivery, which is what we are working on.
    I do not think that there will be the necessity to rebrand the Department, but there may be changes in relation to the agencies that are part of the DEFRA family and how things are delivered, for instance, through the regional development agencies, local government and so on. The likelihood of some changes in those directions is indicated by the statement of principles that Lord Haskins has already put in the public domain.
    Mr. David Lidington: Does the Minister understand the justified resentment in our rural communities at time and money being wasted on rebranding exercises when, to take just one example, his Department's Rural Payments Agency is persistently late in delivering to British farmers the payments to which they are entitled and on which the cash flow of their businesses may depend? Is it not time that he started to treat effective service delivery as rather more important a priority than rebranding?
    Alun Michael: I suppose that there is some resentment when people are told by the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues that rebranding is not necessary. Of course, he skips the necessity to improve the quality of services, policies and delivery, which is all part of the same issue—improving quality and improving delivery.
    The point is that the new Department takes on enormously important responsibilities for the environment and all the things that are necessary for life and the quality of life; for farming and food; for rural economies; for fisheries; and for the issues that we have already talked about today. People need to understand that we are changing in the direction that the public and our consumers want. As much as the hon. Gentleman tries to obscure it, that is what we are doing—but there we are, that is the Opposition we have got.
    Mr. Lidington: Indeed, the examples of incompetence and poor priorities go much further than British agriculture. Will the Minister confirm that, because the Government got their sums wrong over the cost of implementing their right-to-roam legislation, they are having to cut their vital villages grant programme in this and future years? Is it not time that he committed himself to delivering a fair deal for the countryside by concentrating first on good housekeeping and practical policy delivery rather than on slogans and spin?
    Alun Michael: Well, that sounded like slogans and spin to me, but it gives me the opportunity to correct some impressions about the Countryside Agency's spending. There were fears that it would be far too high
    494
    and that that would dramatically affect the vital villages programme. That has been brought under control. There has been a short-term suspension of activities in the vital villages programme, which I think is unnecessary. I have made that clear to the agency.
    The hon. Gentleman criticises the Rural Payments Agency. It has vastly improved its performance and we are investing a great deal of money in the IT that will enable it to do so even more responsibly. I see that a certain amount has been invested in rebranding the Conservative party. I agree that that is a waste of money.

    Fallen Stock
    Mr. Laurence Robertson: If she will make a statement on the disposal of fallen stock on farms. [120191]
    Mr. Simon Thomas: If she will make a statement on the proposed scheme for collecting fallen stock. [120195]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): The response to the letter that we sent to livestock farmers in April asking for expressions of interest in joining a national fallen stock scheme has been disappointing. In the light of that, we are considering whether the scheme should now go ahead, and if so in what form.
    Mr. Robertson: In welcoming the new Minister, may I also pay tribute to the former Minister for the Environment, the right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher), whom I found to be both able and courteous?
    Does the Minister agree that many livestock farmers may not have fully realised the implications of the European legislation? The Minister for the Environment shakes his head, but would not more people be attracted to the scheme if it were already up and running? Farmers will have great difficulty in disposing of fallen stock, especially if the Minister for Rural Affairs has his way on the hunting ban.
    Mr. Bradshaw: The hon. Gentleman may have a point when he says that if the scheme were up and running people might come on board, but I do not agree that we could have done more to publicise it. We have debated it for over a year, we have written to every livestock farmer in the country, and we have extended the consultation period. The response we have received does not suggest to us that people are not aware of the scheme; it is just that not enough people have responded.
    Mr. Thomas: Although the response was disappointing, as the Minister says, it is possible that those who did respond were the main livestock farmers. The response may have come from the larger holdings, where the scheme could work. Will the Minister look at the details of the responses from both England and Wales, and establish whether the scheme could be made to work initially? Other farmers could be persuaded to join subsequently.

    495
    Will the Minister also take account of the experience of Scotland? The scheme is going ahead on most farms there. Meanwhile, leeway is being given to upland and remote farms in, for instance, mid-Wales, where stock can be left to feed the rare red kite population. That combination could prove successful. Will the Minister look into it and ensure that something is done and that farmers are not left in limbo?
    Mr. Bradshaw: I will look at the details of the responses. From what I have seen during the few days in which I have been doing my job, I believe that there has been a bigger response from the bigger producers, and a bigger response from Wales and Scotland. That does not help our calculations, however. After my meeting with representatives of the fishing industry this afternoon, I shall discuss the matter during my first meeting with farming industry representatives, taking into account the points made by the hon. Gentleman.
    Huw Irranca-Davies: The aims of the fallen stock scheme are laudable. The Minister may be surprised to learn, however, that farmers in my constituency must travel as far as Haverfordwest and the constituency of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) under the current scheme— journeys taking more than two hours—although there are local, established incinerators that could be brought up to standard. Will the Minister clarify the guidelines on grants that may be available, and specify the standard that the incinerators should meet?
    Mr. Bradshaw: I will look into that. I understand that the issue of grants is currently being investigated, as are the guidelines on the standards of incineration.
    Mr. Michael Clapham: I join others in congratulating my hon. Friend.
    I know from meetings I have had with farmers in my constituency that there will be great disappointment if the scheme does not take off. What about the BSE testing scheme? Will that still be in situ, and will beasts aged both under and over 24 months still be picked up free of charge?
    Mr. Bradshaw: The BSE scheme will remain in situ. The issue of the age of carcases i s under review. I am grateful for my hon. Friend's recognition—reflected, I think, on both sides of the House—that the scheme the Government came up with earlier this year is a good one. It is disappointing that there has not been a more positive response.
    Mr. James Gray: Leaving aside the substantial shortcomings of the scheme that has been proposed, will the Minister focus for a moment on one unfortunate side product? I use the term advisedly.
    I understand that all the ash that will be produced from the incineration of the 200,000 tonnes of fallen stock each year will have to go into landfill, which contrasts starkly with what happens to ash from human crematoriums. If one's granny dies of black plague we can spread the ash on the garden, but if one's horse dies
    496
    of old age we cannot. Will the Minister reconsider the regulations involved so that the ash can be put to better use—for instance, by being spread on the land?
    Mr. Bradshaw: The hon. Gentleman is rather unfair when he describes the scheme as having shortcomings. It is a very good scheme. It offers—it is still on the table—good value for money for producers of all sizes. The charges that were being talked about represented good value for money compared with the fees that producers would pay if they had to dispose of the fallen stock themselves in the free market. On the specific question of the disposal of ash, I am ashamed to admit that I was not aware of that problem, but I will look into it and write to the hon. Gentleman, if he will allow me.
    David Taylor: The Poultry Farming in the United Kingdom Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, of which I am a member, is conducting an inquiry under my chairmanship into the British poultry industry. Two days ago, we heard from the two national organisations for egg producers and meat producers that they have a significant problem with the disposal of dead birds, which number many millions a year. What access to any fallen stock scheme was offered to them? Would not that help to improve the viability of the scheme?
    Mr. Bradshaw: Yes. As it stands, large poultry producers would be eligible for the scheme. However, as I said earlier, because of the low number of responses to the Government's consultation, we may have to have another look at that matter. I am also aware that many of the producers that my hon. Friend talks about already have their own solutions to the problem, such as incineration on-site.

    GM Contaminations
    Dr. Vincent Cable: When she expects to issue guidelines on liability for compensation in the case of GM contaminations. [120196]
    The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Elliot Morley): We expect to receive a report next month from the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission on the co-existence of GM and non-GM crops and associated liability issues. We will consider that issue further in the light of that report.
    Dr. Cable: Can I return to the issue of the economic implications of contamination, particularly for organic farming, by GM crops? When will the Government issue guidance on specific liability, which I believe the commission judges to be a political, not a technical issue, and on an industrial compensation scheme, on which the Government would have to take a lead? Without guidance and leadership on those two issues, it will be impossible to make rational decisions on the future of commercial use of GM crops.
    Mr. Morley: As I mentioned earlier, we recognise that co-existence raises issues, including whether it is possible to agree threshold limits in relation to crops, how those can be measured and how that fits in with the organic

    497
    sector's rules. Of course, there are issues of liability, regulation of the use of any crops, declaration, description and control. Those are quite complex issues. The report that has been commissioned will be helpful in guiding the Government on what the best way is of shaping that. Those issues are still under discussion. The national dialogue that is under way will also be helpful in obtaining people's views on the best way forward on those points.

    CAP
    Joyce Quin: If she will make a statement on EU discussions on reform of the common agricultural policy. [120198]
    The Minister for Rural Affairs (Alun Michael): As my right hon. Friend is aware, crucial negotiations between EU Agriculture Ministers about reform of the common agricultural policy got off to a positive start last week and resumed on Tuesday. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is currently heavily engaged in trying to secure a deal that will benefit farmers, consumers, the environment, developing countries and world trade.
    Joyce Quin: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Does he agree that replacing the common agricultural policy with a policy of sustainable rural development is the best way to reconcile the interests of farmers, world trade and developing countries? Which countries in the EU are supporting such an approach, and, in particular, what discussions and support are we getting from our German partners, who have a lot to gain from that approach?
    Alun Michael: My right hon. Friend takes us into some of the detail. I believe that the plenary session reconvened a few minutes ago. We are still talking and negotiating. There seems to be a common agreement among all parties that we must get an agreement and that the common agricultural policy must be reformed. As I indicated, we are working hard to achieve the right deal. I am sure that she will agree that we have the best negotiator in the business in the Secretary of State, who is seeking to achieve those outcomes for the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Bill Wiggin: It is nice to see you back in the Chair, Mr. Speaker. I ask the Minister to look very carefully at unsupported crops, as it is growers who are already out of the subsidy culture who stand to lose most as a result of the current proposals.
    Alun Michael: We certainly look with interest at the situation regarding unsupported crops. The Government's general approach is to help all producers—supported and unsupported—to do their best to meet their market's requirements and to be their competitive.
    Mr. David Borrow: My right hon. Friend will be aware that it is absolutely crucial that the European Union is able to enter into the World Trade Organisation discussions in September with significant changes to the common agricultural policy already agreed. Does he agree that a slightly amended CAP—
    498
    rather than radical reform—is probably not worth having, and that it would be in Britain's and the developing world's interests to push this issue to the limit, instead of agreeing to a slight compromise to satisfy the French Government's unreasonable demands in the current negotiations?
    Alun Michael: As my hon. Friend knows, the Secretary of State is the sort of person who will ensure the very best outcome from any period of negotiation. We should await the outcome of those discussions, but my hon. Friend is right to say that a meaningful agreement on CAP reform would be the best possible starting point for our entering into the WTO trade talks at Cancun in September. For the moment, however, we need to contain ourselves and wait and see what emerges from today's discussions.
    Mr. James Gray: The Financial Times reported last week that the French and the Germans have entered into complex secret negotiations on the subject—would you believe it?—of the takeovers directive. The Germans have made huge concessions and blown a hole in the Fischler package in return for concessions on the takeovers directive. We are pleased that the Secretary of State is currently involved in the negotiations, but I rather hoped that the Minister would come to the Dispatch Box today and give us a bit of news from the front. What line is the Secretary of State taking in those negotiations, will the Minister reassure us that she is indeed fighting British farmers' corner, and what does he hope the outcome will be?
    Alun Michael: I am not going to try to predict the outcome of talks that are taking place as we speak. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that the line that the Secretary of State will take on behalf of Britain and British agriculture will be a tough one. She will do everything that she can to produce the best possible outcome, and it would enhance the hon. Gentleman's reputation if he were to give her proper credit for the way in which she has fought for us on the international stage. On the Financial Times report, I would simply say that our discussions ought not to be driven by what we read in the newspapers.

    Fishing Industry (Northumberland)
    Mr A.J. Beith: What recent assessment she has made of the (a) state of and (b) prospects for the fishing industry in Northumberland. [120199]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Ben Bradshaw): The north-east of England fleet has been numerically stable in the past two or three years. The Northumberland fleet will continue to benefit from access to prawns and to shellfish stocks.
    Mr. Beith: Does the Minister agree that he would do well to travel to Northumberland pretty soon to enhance his knowledge of the problems faced by fishermen in the region? They have lost much of their cod fishery, are in the process of losing their salmon driftnet fishery, still have no licensing system to protect

    499
    their shellfish fishery and are worried about the future of the prawn fishery, to which the Minister referred. Should not all of that be fairly high on his agenda?
    Mr. Bradshaw: My grand tour of UK fisheries during the summer is expanding by the minute. I am aware of the problems faced in recent years by the fishing industry that the right hon. Gentleman represents, but I should point out that the salmon driftnet fishery is a voluntary scheme that has proved—he will correct me if I am wrong—popular in his area. Of course, it will have very beneficial effects on the number of river salmon, which will also benefit other people.

    Abattoirs and Slaughterhouses
    Sandra Gidley: What measures her Department is taking to support small and medium-sized abattoirs and slaughterhouses. [120200]
    The Minister for Rural Affairs (Alun Michael): We are encouraging the use of investment grants within the England rural development programme to help to
    500
    improve the abattoir industry's structure, processing and marketing. We are committing resources to the Meat Industry Forum and are actively participating in its work to improve the competitiveness of red meat food chains.
    Sandra Gidley: The problems associated with the reduction in the number of small abattoirs have been well rehearsed, and many existing abattoirs are concerned about the impact of the animal by-products regulations. What is being done to help the smaller slaughterhouses, for which the cost of disposing of blood will rise from £16 per tonne to £60 to £80 per tonne?
    Alun Michael: We are helping, and working with, the industry to develop an action plan to address some of these issues. As I have said, grants are available within the England rural development programme to help smaller abattoirs become more competitive. I accept that things are not easy for small abattoirs; indeed, this has long been a difficult issue. We must help and support the market, rather than looking for a magic wand to take away those problems.

Business of the House
Mr. Eric Forth: May we have the business for next week from the new and part-time Leader of the House?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Peter Hain): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 23 JUNE—Opposition Day [10th Allotted Day]. Until 7 o'clock there will be a debate on student finance, followed by a debate entitled "The Transport Crisis". Both debates arise on a motion in the name of the Liberal Democrats. Followed by proceedings on the Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) (No. 2) Bill.
TUESDAY 24 JUNE—Remaining stages of the Anti-Social Behaviour Bill.
Commons consideration of Lords amendments.
WEDNESDAY 25 JUNE—Opposition Day [11th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on a fair deal for students and parents, followed by a debate on a fair deal in world trade. Both debates arise on an Opposition motion.
THURSDAY 26 JUNE—A debate on motions relating to the Second Report of the Committee on Standards and Privileges and on the Eighth Report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life "Standards of Conduct in the House of Commons".
FRIDAY 27 JUNE—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the following week will include:
MONDAY 30 JUNE—Remaining stages of the Hunting Bill.
TUESDAY 1 JULY—Remaining stages of the Finance Bill.
WEDNESDAY 2 JULY—Opposition Day [12th Allotted Day]. There will be a debate on an Opposition motion. Subject to be announced.
THURSDAY 3 JULY—Debate on the Intelligence and Security Committee Annual Report 2002–03 on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
FRIDAY 4 JULY—Private Member's Bills.
I should also like to inform the House that the business in Westminster Hall for the beginning of July will be:
THURSDAY 3 JULY—A debate on the report from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee on badgers and bovine TB.
THURSDAY 10 JULY—A debate on the report from the Northern Ireland Affairs Committee on the financing of terrorism.
I should like to take this opportunity to say what an honour and privilege it is to be appointed Leader of the House. I am delighted to have the opportunity to work closely with you, Mr. Speaker. I follow in illustrious footsteps, and I want to pay particular tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) for the great advances that he—and we—made during his time as Leader of the House. I very much share his enthusiasm for modernisation and his great respect for Parliament. I hope that I can live up to the high standards that he and the now Secretary of State for Health, my right hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, North and Bellshill (Dr. Reid) set.
502
It is my intention, as Leader of the House, to listen to all sides and strive for consensus rather than conflict. I have fought for democracy and liberty all my political life, and I am and will remain the House's ambassador within the Government. I look forward to working with the shadow Leader of the House—hopefully in a less robust and rumbustious manner than our first encounter on Tuesday inevitably was.
Mr. Forth: I am more than happy to welcome the Secretary of State for Wales to business questions—[Interruption]—and we are grateful that he has been able to spare some time to be with us this Thursday. I hope that we will see him nearly every Thursday—at least for a while.
At yesterday's PMPs—[HON. MEMBERS: "PMPs?"] Yes, Prime Minister's porkies again. At yesterday's PMPs, the Prime Minister said:
"It has never been the case that officials have given evidence to Select Committees".—[Official Report, 18 June 2003; Vol. 407, c. 350.]
Yet in reply to a point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant), Mr. Deputy Speaker said:
"If the hon. Gentleman is asking whether it is normal for officials to appear before Select Committees, the answer is yes."—[Official Report, 18 June.2003; Vol. 407, c. 388.]
We really must know who is right. The Prime Minister and the Deputy Speaker are in direct and explicit contradiction of each other. Will the part-time Leader of the House please tell us who he believes to be right on that issue, and if necessary will he give the Prime Minister an opportunity to come to the House urgently to apologise and to clear the matter up?
Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) asked the Prime Minister whether Buckingham Palace had been consulted before the announcements were made from No. 10 last Thursday. The Prime Minister replied:
"Consultations have taken place in the normal way."—[Official Report, 18 June 2003; Vol. 407, c. 367.]
Will the part-time Leader of the House confirm explicitly whether the palace was consulted before the announcements were made last Thursday from No. 10, especially on those concerning the Lord Chancellor and the Privy Council? We need to know that for the sake of completeness.
Why are the Government giving parliamentary time to the Hunting Bill and not, apparently, to the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill? Do the Government now believe that foxes' health is more important than people's health? And why has only one day been allocated to the Hunting Bill, with all the amendments that have been tabled to it? Why has only one day been allocated to the Finance Bill? That is in direct contradiction of the conventions of the House on such an important Bill. It should concern all right hon. and hon. Members that the Government are now squeezing the parliamentary time for even the Finance Bill, in the same way as they have squeezed almost everything else.

503
Can the part-time Leader of the House please clear up the continuing confusion about the relationship between the Department for Constitutional Affairs, the Scotland Office and the Wales Office? When we finally and belatedly dragged the new list of Ministers out of the Government, some five days after the now notorious reshuffle, it emerged that the Under-Secretaries of States for Scotland and Wales are listed as part of the Department for Constitutional Affairs. There is no longer any mention of the Scotland Office or the Wales Office in the list of the Government. Can the part-time Leader of the House further confirm that the Prime Minister said this yesterday?
"The civil servants in the Scotland Office and the Wales Office will be part of the Department for Constitutional Affairs".—[Official Report. 18 June 2003; Vol. 407, c. 358.]
We know already that they report to one permanent secretary, so what has happened to the Scotland Office and the Wales Office? They appear to have disappeared completely in ministerial and official terms, so what is left of them? There might be a brass plaque up on the building, but is there anybody left inside?
Two Opposition days have been announced for next week—for Monday and Wednesday. Can the part-time Leader of the House guarantee to us that there will be no Government statements encroaching on Opposition time on either day? If he cannot give us that guarantee, will he guarantee that Opposition time will be protected? If the Government ever do have to make a statement on an Opposition day, will he guarantee that the time available to the House will be extended appropriately to protect Opposition time?
Peter Hain: First, on the last point, I will happily endeavour to protect Opposition time. I realise that that is an issue for the right hon. Gentleman—[HON. MEMBERS: "For all of us."] Indeed, and I shall see what I can do. The right hon. Gentleman will also appreciate that we have had regular requests for statements from Secretaries of State—certainly in the first period of our Government—and Ministers, including the Prime Minister, have made statements with greater frequency. I know that the House welcomes that.
The right hon. Gentleman made regular reference to me as the part-time Leader of the House. I regard myself as doing everything that is needed in all the time that is needed to do this job properly, and I will certainly continue to do that. There are many precedents for it. I do not claim to have the intellectual ability or stature of Lord Howe, but he was both Leader of the House and Deputy Prime Minister. Someone of much greater stature than both of us—Winston Churchill—also held those posts—
Mr. John Bercow: He was a great man.
Peter Hain: That is what I have just said. I agree with the hon. Gentleman.
I also want to say that I thought that the right hon. Gentleman gave a very creditable performance, and I look forward to many more of them. Indeed, his performance on Tuesday was so creditable by comparison with that of the Leader of the Opposition
504
yesterday that I wonder whether he might find himself in a different job in the event of a shadow Cabinet reshuffle. The Daily Mail reported this morning that the Leader of the Opposition
"was terrible. Quite stunningly bad. By the end … he was reduced to not much more than a handful of quivering gizzards and an empty, tock-hollow skull."
It went on to say that watching his statement
"was like seeing Manuel the waiter carry a large tray of Campari sodas down the Spanish Steps in Rome."
I know that the shadow Leader of the House will agree with the Daily Mail, as he is no friend of the Leader of the Opposition. I am very much looking forward to our exchanges in the future, and to working with him.
I turn now to the other points that the right hon. Gentleman raised. The shadow Leader of the House asked about officials attending Select Committees. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made the matter amply clear and, if there was need of clarification, Mr. Deputy Speaker later supplied it. Officials appear by special invitation; but it is not simply as it were a sport—a question of any official attending on demand. The matter is handled in the usual way.
On the second point raised by the shadow Leader of the House, I can happily confirm what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said. Buckingham Palace was indeed consulted in the usual fashion. [HON. MEMBERS: "When?"] The right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues ask when and where, but it is not the habit of this House to discuss private conversations with the monarch. The right hon. Gentleman should abide by the culture of the House, as I shall certainly seek to do.
The right hon. Gentleman asked why only one day had been allocated for consideration of the Hunting Bill. He and every other hon. Member will be well aware that the Bill has been subject to detailed scrutiny, quite properly, in Committee and on other occasions in the House. We are dealing with the Hunting Bill in the normal fashion, and according to the precedent established with other Bills.
The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst asked about the Wales Office and the Scotland Office. Frankly, I think the issue is running out of steam, but I shall deal with the points that he raised. Of course my deputy in the Wales Office is listed as a junior Minister under the Department for Constitutional Affairs. For the purposes of locating officials—[HON. MEMBERS: "Careful."] I am being precise, not just careful. I am the Secretary of State for Wales as well as the Leader of the House, so I know what is going on in Wales, unlike the right hon. Gentleman.
The Wales Office is open for business. The right hon. Gentleman can trot up Whitehall and find that the Wales Office plaque is still there. It was there on Thursday afternoon; it was there on Thursday evening; it was there on Friday morning; and it will remain there. All the officials who were working for me before the reshuffle announcement on Thursday afternoon are still working for me, and will continue to do so. The right hon. Gentleman should stop flogging this dead horse and get on to serious business instead.
As to why the Scotland Office and the Wales Office were not listed on the official titles of Ministers, I can tell the House that they never have been. The title of

505
Secretary of State for Wales has always appeared in the official list, and that remains the case—it refers to my goodself. [Interruption.] It is interesting to note that the Opposition promised in their manifesto for the last general election exactly the same division of responsibilities for the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Scotland as we have now implemented. They are now seeking to walk away from that manifesto promise, because they are interested in trivia and not the big the constitutional picture.
The right hon. Gentleman should concentrate on the fact that I, as Secretary of State for Wales, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will deliver for the people of Wales and Scotland in a way that the Tories so abjectly failed to do during their 18 miserable years of office.
Mr. Robin Cook: I thank my right hon. Friend for his generous words about me and offer my own warm congratulations to him. I am delighted that the role of regenerating our parliamentary democracy should fall to him, and I am confident that he will give it full priority and will be successful.
My right hon. Friend will find that one of the delights about this time on a Thursday is the volume of helpful but unsolicited advice that he will receive from Back Benchers. Now that I have the privilege of being a Back Bencher, may I offer him two suggestions on parliamentary business?
First, when I left his post, the majority of Departments that had a Bill for the next Session had given an undertaking to publish it in draft before the end of this Session. As there are only four weeks to go before the House rises for the summer, I suggest that my right hon. Friend give priority to reminding Departments that they need to fulfil that undertaking.
Secondly, the innovation, which we introduced, of having a 12-month calendar of parliamentary dates has, sadly, only four more months to run. I am well aware that there will be those around my right hon. Friend who will say that we have no idea of the date of prorogation. May I suggest that if he were to produce a calendar that took us up to and included the next Whit recess, with an asterisk noting that prorogation will be at an unknown date in November, the majority of Members would warmly welcome it and it would get him off to a good start with Members on both sides of the House?
Peter Hain: I am very grateful to my right hon. Friend. I am a long-standing admirer and friend of his, and I am privileged to follow in his footsteps in this job. He has made two important suggestions, and I have a great deal of sympathy with both. As Secretary of State for Wales, I have been responsible for seeing draft Wales Bills—a draft Audit Bill for Wales is currently going through pre-legislative scrutiny, which has been very effective—
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: You are still responsible for it.
Peter Hain: Indeed, I am, and I will see it to its end and see it on to the statute book.
506
That precedent is a good one, and I shall encourage my fellow Secretaries of State in Cabinet to continue with it.
On the question of dates for recesses, my right hon. Friend made a valid point, and I understand the need that right hon. and hon. Members have for a clear calendar. That was one of my right hon. Friend's innovative procedures, and it was widely welcomed across the House. I hope to be in a position next week at least to say something about the Christmas recess dates.
Mr. Paul Tyler: In congratulating you, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my right hon. and hon. Friends on the honour awarded to you by Glasgow university, I wonder whether you may want to dispel the nefarious rumour that you wish, outside the Chamber, to be referred to from now on as "Doc Martin".
The Leader of the House has given us further information on the Hunting Bill. Will he consider seriously what will happen after the Bill leaves this part of the building and goes to the other place? He will be aware, having fully briefed himself, that the House of Lords has a different procedure from ours for carryover. If the Bill is not properly considered in this House—there are queries about whether it will be—and many amendments therefore have to be considered in the other place, the arrangements at the other end of the building are, according to the Clerks, that
"bills that have received pre-legislative scrutiny in either House should, on a motion moved in the House in possession of the bill at the end of the session, be allowed to be carried-over into the next session"
The Procedure Committee's recommendation to the House of Lords was:
"We recommend that the House should now take this endorsement a stage further and agree to Group recommendation (b)"—
the one to which I have referred—
"but only for Government bills and subject to the proviso on pre-legislative scrutiny in paragraph 6 above."
In other words: no pre-legislative scrutiny, no carryover. If, therefore, the business is not completed in the other House before prorogation, there is no prospect of that Bill's going through to the next Session on carryover. It will have to start again.
What does the Leader of the House intend to do in those circumstances? I have no doubt that he has had an opportunity of reading contributions to the debate in this House on carry-over on 10 June, including my own, and I hope that he will note that carry-over is still a matter for negotiation between the parties and is very much connected with the proposals of the Modernisation Committee, led by the previous Leader of the House, which were part of a trade-off to the effect that the Opposition parties should have a bigger role in deciding what comes to this House and in what order, and what business takes place here.
On a different point, the Leader of the House will have noted the decision on Friday when the Ministry of Defence lost an appeal on Gulf war illnesses having spent £1 million on legal fees, pursuing and harrying veterans—service personnel who served this country well in the first Gulf 'War—whose only fault was that they sought justice. This morning the Medical Research Council has reviewed the situation. There is still great

507
uncertainty, but what is certain is that those who have served the country well deserve better than the extraordinary behaviour of the Ministry of Defence. Given that there is a new Minister responsible for veterans' affairs, surely the Secretary of State himself should come to the House and explain what has happened.
Peter Hain: I echo the hon. Gentleman's congratulations to you, Mr. Speaker, as I am sure do Members on all Benches throughout the House.
I was somewhat nervous of the hon. Gentleman's question because when he last rose to question my predecessor as Leader of the House, he prefaced his remarks thus:
"Assuming that the right hon. Gentleman is not about to become Secretary of State for Health".—[Official Report, 12 June 2003; Vol. 406, c. 834.]
I assume that he had an inside track on the Prime Minister's mind. If that is still the case, I should be grateful if he could tell me what my next job will be.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the Hunting Bill. He is right that there is no carry-over provision. I am sure that the Lords will not wish to frustrate the overwhelming view of the House of Commons. This House has consistently expressed its position on the Hunting Bill and is about to do so again. It is a manifesto commitment by the Labour party being carried into legislation—as our Government have consistently done with all our manifesto promises. I am sure that the Lords will not wish to block a manifesto commitment of this kind. However, in such circumstances there are other procedures available, to which I hope we will not have recourse, which include the Parliament Acts.
The question of Gulf war illnesses is an important one. We all had constituents serving in the Gulf and it is an important concern for them and for us as Members of the House. I do not think that the judgment was as conclusive as the hon. Gentleman suggested. I know that the Minister of Defence is considering it closely and no doubt at the appropriate time a Minister will report to the House.
Mr. Barry Gardiner: You began the parliamentary day today by announcing the death of my friend and parliamentary neighbour, Paul Daisley, Mr. Speaker. Is my right hon. Friend aware that the last debate following which Paul came from his sick bed to vote was the hunting debate earlier this year? He would have rejoiced at my right hon. Friend's announcement today that the Bill is coming back to the House for its remaining stages, despite the fact that he was a lifelong supporter of Leicester City—the Foxes.
Peter Hain: I echo your earlier statement, Mr. Speaker, and my hon. Friend's recognition of the outstanding role that the former hon. Member for Brent, East played in this House. He was a champion of the rights of animals and took a strong position on the Hunting Bill, to such an extent that he was willing to rise
508
from his sick bed in desperate circumstances to register his vote. I hope that the House will bear that in mind when we vote on the issue in future.
Mr. Keith Simpson: I wonder whether the acting Leader of the House would come back to the point raised by my right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House about the appearance of civil servants in front of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Intelligence and Security Committee. It seems to me and to many hon. Members that the Prime Minister's director of communications, Mr. Alastair Campbell, has something to offer, whatever one's views on the evidence, because among other things he was directly involved in setting up the Foreign Office coalition information centre. I backed the Government on their action over Iraq and I should have thought that his appearance on behalf of the Prime Minister in front of either Committee would clear this matter up once and for all. If he does not appear, I suspect that those who are looking for a cover-up will believe that there is one.
Peter Hain: As the hon. Gentleman well knows, the Prime Minister, and indeed the whole Government, have offered to co-operate in the manner described. What is involved, and was evident in the hon. Gentleman's question, is an attempt to bait individual officials in No. 10 and elsewhere in Government. This is a serious situation. Serious allegations have been made and need to be investigated properly. The Prime Minister has made it absolutely clear that that will be done properly. I hope, too, that the hon. Gentleman will not seek to impugn the integrity of the intelligence services—
Mr. Simpson: No.
Peter Hain: I am sure the hon. Gentleman was not seeking to do that. As I have good cause to understand from my job as a Foreign Office Minister, holding two posts between 1999 and last year, the intelligence services do an outstanding job. I worked closely with them on Iraq and other matters, and we should not bring them into this issue.
Denzil Davies: As the Government appear to have set their face against holding a referendum on the new European constitution, would my right hon. Friend at least give an assurance that when it arrives in its final form, it will be placed before the House in its entirety so that it can be scrutinised, and if necessary amended, line by line and clause by clause?
Peter Hain: My right hon. Friend will remember our activity during the Maastricht Bill when these issues last arose. He will also know that it is the responsibility of the House and the wish of the Government to subject every treaty signed to detailed scrutiny. He will also be aware, however, that it is not possible for the House to amend a treaty, although it is possible for it to reject one. I hope that he will participate in that debate. The final constitutional treaty, as with the Maastricht, Amsterdam and Nice treaties and all the others before and between them, will be made available to Members and brought to the House for debate as usual.
Sir Nicholas Winterton: The Leader of the House has indicated that he will on all occasions

509
stand up for the integrity and authority of the House. If that is the case, when he comes to the Modernisation Committee and is no doubt elected its Chairman, will he assure the House that the matter of programming will be a priority for him? As he realises, much important legislation is going through the House with large sections not debated. That cannot be right or enhance the reputation of the House, and it means that the House is not carrying out one of its most fundamental duties.
To follow up a point made by my right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House, if statements are made prior to an important Opposition debate, will the right hon. Gentleman give me a commitment that he will look at extending that debate beyond the time of interruption by the length of time it took to hear the statement and all the supplementary questions on it?
Peter Hain: I recognise the long and outstanding role that the hon. Gentleman has played in this House. He is widely admired on all Benches.
The hon. Gentleman made a series of important points. If the Modernisation Committee decides to elect me as its Chair, I would be privileged to do the job. Its work is very important. I know that the hon. Gentleman takes a close interest in it and I hope to have discussions with him on his views. He makes an important point about programming, which I understand. We have of necessity to get Government business through, but the rights of the House must be respected, and these matters are subject to negotiation through the usual channels. All too often it seems to be the case that a lot of time is taken and sometimes there is filibustering, which is a tactic that all Oppositions use—I am not casting stones in any particular direction—so that some of the big issues are not subject to the detailed scrutiny that they need.
I understand the hon. Gentleman's point about statements and consideration will be given to that. He will understand that Members want to know when proceedings are likely to end. If we continually did as he suggests there would be protests from hon. Members on both sides of the House. Moreover, we have a responsibility to get Government business through. Nevertheless, I will certainly give consideration to his request.
Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Leader of the House give us an assurance that there will be an early debate on the situation in Iraq; that, during that debate, we shall have the opportunity to hear a statement from a Minister on the operations of the Iraqi assistance fund; and that we shall be told under what powers the privatisation of services is taking place, and given the timetable for British and American withdrawal and replacement by a United Nations force to usher in a representative Government of the people of Iraq? Many people believe that we are witnessing a new colony in Iraq, with all the accompanying horrors and devastation. We need an urgent debate on the matter.
Peter Hain: I recognise my hon. Friend's long and close interest in the matter and the detailed concern that he expresses. There have been many debates and statements on Iraq and other opportunities to raise matters. He would be quite in order to table a private
510
Member's Bill or to try to obtain an Adjournment debate if he feels that there is insufficient opportunity in the future.
On the future of the UN force, UN operations and the establishment of a representative Government, my hon. Friend knows that we are committed, for the first time in more than a generation, to establishing a representative Government in Iraq. The establishment of democracy in Iraq is one of our objectives.
Mr. Roger Gale: A few moments ago, my right hon. Friend, the shadow Leader of the House, raised the question that I raised with the Prime Minister yesterday afternoon. The right hon. Gentleman speaking for the Government was as evasive today as the Prime Minister was yesterday, so I shall try again.
Is the right hon. Gentleman in a position to deny that the first that Buckingham palace heard of the abolition of the Lord Chancellor was through the news bulletins? Can he confirm that the Prime Minister discussed with the Head of State, Her Majesty the Queen, his proposals before they were publicly announced? If he can confirm that, can he indicate when it was done?
Peter Hain: I have said all that needs to be said about that matter.
Miss Anne Begg: On 2 July, a mass lobby will be held by some of the 2 million women who suffer from endometriosis, a gynaecological condition that has severe consequences. Can the Leader of the House find time for a debate on treatment and research funding for a condition that affects so many of our constituents?
Peter Hain: I understand and recognise that important issue and the concerns of those who are affected by the condition. I am pleased that they are making representations in the way that my hon. Friend described. Obviously, I shall look into the opportunities, but she can apply for a debate in the normal fashion.
Sir Archy Kirkwood: The new Leader of the House's statement at the beginning of his tenure, committing himself to further modernisation, is welcome to those on both sides of the House who remain impatient for change. Will he bring forward proposals to give us his own ideas about that as soon as he can? Will he try to get the Minister for agriculture to make a statement next week, not in Opposition time, to explain the outcome of the ongoing consideration in Luxembourg of reform of the common agricultural policy? Will he give serious consideration to a debate on agriculture in Government time, before the summer recess?
Peter Hain: Obviously, we shall give consideration to that. I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will want to bring to the attention of the House in the usual way any developments that arise on that matter. We are all concerned. There is probably cross-party consensus on reform—and, indeed, abolition—of the CAP.
I am not in favour of modernisation for its own sake; I am in favour of listening to the House to consider how we can move forward and adjust, and what it is sensible

511
to do. I look forward to practical suggestions from both sides of the House on how we can take the process forward.
Mr. Michael Meacher: In view of the fact that a full-scale public debate is under way on genetic modification—to the Government's credit—and that the public, the industry, the non-governmental organisations and even the media are discussing the issue, can my right hon. Friend use his good offices to ensure that the House, too, has an opportunity to express its views on that highly contentious issue in a debate before the recess?
Peter Hain: First, I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend, who was an outstanding Minister for the Environment. I am sure that he will continue to play an important role on that matter in the House, including on the crucial issue of genetically modified products. Obviously, the matter will be discussed in detail and my right hon. Friend will have many opportunities to bring it to the attention of the House by applying for a debate. However, I shall discuss his request with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
Mr. Andrew Mackay: I am sure that the new Leader of the House would not want to mislead the House on his first outing at business questions, so may I take this opportunity to invite him to correct what he said in answer to my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)? The Leader of the House said that yesterday the Prime Minister had stated that officials attend Select Committees, but in fact the Prime Minister said:
"It has never been the case that officials have given evidence to Select Committees."—[Official Report, 18 June 2003; Vol. 407, c. 350.]
First, will the Leader of the House correct the inadvertent mistake that he made earlier and, secondly, will he tell us when the Prime Minister will come to the House and make a correction, too, and make a statement about when Mr. Alastair Campbell and others will appear before Select Committees?
Peter Hain: The point that the Prime Minister was making to all fair-minded Members was that Ministers are answerable for the conduct of the Government and that the principle of ministerial responsibility applies. Ministers do not dump on our officials—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!] Indeed, we do not. That is the point that my right hon. Friend was making. Of course, in particular circumstances, such things can be arranged and discussed, as has often happened.
David Hamilton: I, too, congratulate the Leader of the House on his new appointment. My right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) is a hard act to follow.
About two or three weeks ago, the Royal Mail announced that it was changing Parcelforce and moving from rail to road. The impact on the roads will be tremendous and I cannot believe that it will be welcomed by the Select Committee on the Environment
512
and Rural Affairs, the Department of Transport or the Department of Trade and Industry. Will my right hon. Friend make provision for a proper debate before thousands and thousands of lorries plough on to our already congested roads?
Peter Hain: I very much sympathise with the point that my hon. Friend makes. As a former research officer for the Post Office workers union, I know how important the night mail service was. The change is regrettable for environmental reasons as well as for the interests of the Royal Mail. Obviously, the decision is for the Royal Mail, but if my hon. Friend wants to apply for a private Member's debate he has the opportunity to do so.
Mr. Richard Bacon: Every pound of public expenditure requires an accounting officer—a civil servant, incidentally—who can account to the House for how that money is spent. May we have an early debate on the consequences of the reshuffle on financial accountability to the House? Furthermore, particularly in relation to the non-devolved responsibilities of the Secretary of State for Wales, who is the accounting officer? Is it still Sir Jon Shortridge?
Peter Hain: The accounting officer will be the Permanent Secretary at the Department for Constitutional Affairs. In that respect, my officials in the Wales Office, who come under his remit for such purposes, will have more advantages, instead of being in a very small Department, often seconded from the National Assembly—although that is not such a problem because they could return to Cardiff after service here. Officials permanently based in London had fewer career opportunities than those in much larger Departments. In the Department for Constitutional Affairs, they will have those career opportunities and future advantages that everyone in their position welcomes. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends would do so, too.
Ms Gisela Stuart: The Leader of the House is more aware than many Members that we could improve the way in which we deal with European legislation and matters arising from Europe. Will he, therefore, look favourably on the suggestion that, in order to raise awareness, when the Commission's annual programme is discussed by the European Parliament, it is discussed on the Floor of the House at approximately the same time?
Peter Hain: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's outstanding work as one of two House of Commons representatives at the Convention on the Future of Europe. She worked extremely hard, spending far more time in Brussels than was good for her, but she achieved a very good deal for Britain, which we are taking into the intergovernmental conference.
On the specific point that my hon. Friend makes, I share her desire to make European Union affairs subject to much greater interest in the House. There is an insufficiently wide catchment of Members who take a detailed, informed and expert interest in EU developments. Excellent work is done by the European Scrutiny Committees of both Houses, but it would be to

513
the advantage of the House and to that of the quality of debate on European matters if there were greater opportunities to discuss those issues throughout the House. I shall certainly consider my hon. Friend's interesting suggestion that the Commission's report and future agenda should be discussed in the House.
Sir George Young: Next Thursday, the House will debate the report of the Committee on Standards in Public Life—the Wicks committee. Can the Leader of the House assure us that the relevant changes to Standing Orders will be published well in advance of that debate?
Peter Hain: Yes, it is my intention to table the changes today, if I can. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman does not mind my saying that I also want to show them to him, so that we make sure that they are exactly in line with the will of the House.
Mrs. Anne Campbell: My right hon. Friend will be aware that, during a rehearsal of the Parliament choir on Monday, large shards of wood fell from the ceiling of Westminster Hall to where an audience would have been sitting if that had happened during a performance. The audience would have included His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales. Has my right hon. Friend considered the implications? Does he feel, as I do, that it is time that this building was subject to the proper health and safety checks that every other organisation has to go through?
Peter Hain: I am aware of that incident, as are you, Mr. Speaker. I think that we may even have been together when we received reports of it. Obviously, the choir behaved with great dignity in the circumstances and officials urgently attended to it, and I am sure that the points that my hon. Friend raises will be taken notice of in the appropriate quarters.
Mr. Simon Thomas: May I remind the new Secretary of State, Leader of the House and, possibly, Lord Privy Seal as well—
Sir Archy Kirkwood: Has he not given that one up?
Mr. Thomas: Oh, right. During the right hon. Gentleman's previous job share, he told us in a reply to a written question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) that he had spent 81 out of 90 days on his work as Secretary of State for Wales and the other 10 per cent. on his work on the Convention on the Future of Europe. Will he tell the House now which of his new set of responsibilities is most ill served by that job share—the House, or his duties in Wales? How will he get through those two jobs? He will need more than his usual Red Bull to cope with both of them. Will he arrange a debate in Government time not only on those matters, but on the important constitutional implications of moving civil servants from the Wales Office to a new Department without consulting the body that funds those civil servants from the block grant to the National Assembly for Wales?
Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman is wrong on the last point. The vote for the Welsh block comes to the
514
Secretary of State, and I then make a subvention for the purpose of running the Wales Office—that will continue—and the remainder goes to the National Assembly.
The hon. Gentleman asks about the days spent on the Convention on the Future of Europe. In fact, I was asked how many days I had spent in Brussels. The answer was that I had spent nine days out of the previous 90 in Brussels. That is a different matter from the time that I spent an the Convention. I really think he should concentrate on the big picture, rather than on the trivialities. I shall do everything that is needed to give a good deal to the people of Wales, as I have done for the past nine months, and I shall do everything and put in all the hours that are needed to ensure that the wishes and interests of House are upheld in this post.
The hon. Gentleman asks about my post also as Lord Privy Seal. Frankly, when I became aware that I occupied that position, I did not know what it was, so I looked it up. "The Ministers of the Crown" says:
"Every Government has a Lord Privy Seal in it in order that the holder of the sinecure can carry out duties specified by the Prime Minister."
I think that it helps with getting paid as well. I was told that, if I did not have that title, I would not get a salary.
Mr. Forth: Oh.
Peter Hain: I am sure that that would have been to the despair of the shadow Leader of the House.
I looked further. "An Encyclopaedia of Parliament" says:
"From 1275, there was a Keeper of the Privy Seal, who became, in 1311, a Minister of State on the same footing as the Chancellor and the Treasurer, though of somewhat lower dignity. However, the Lord Privy Seal, who may be a Member of either House, can be a very useful auxiliary Minister, able to give his attention to any matter of urgency which may arise. Lord Waverley, for example, in 1938–39, had the job of situating and instituting more effective air-raid precautions."
Jon Trickett: May I join other hon. Members in welcoming my right hon. Friend to his new post? In particular, I welcome his commitment to modernisation. I think that he shares my view and that of many hon. Members that there is an increasing chasm between ourselves and the electorate. No doubt, modernising the House will help to bring about the renewal of trust.
However, may I press my right hon. Friend on a point to do with the lottery? In my constituency—which, as he knows, is a very deprived area, consisting of former coalmining villages—the Community Fund had what might be thought of as a perfect score, 10 out of 10; but it was 10 failures out of 10 applications. In the past two years, 10 groups have applied for lottery funding and 10 have been refused, each one for bureaucratic reasons. Will my right hon. Friend reaffirm to the House that one of the lottery's purposes is to address deprivation? Will he organise an early debate on the lottery, so that we can explore those matters further?
Peter Hain: I will certainly draw my hon. Friend's points to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport because, obviously, the coalfield community that he

515
represents, which I had the privilege to visit a few years ago, wants like mine to ensure that it gets a fair deal in every respect.
Mr. John Redwood: Given that the massive post office closures will reach the office that inspired "Postman Pat" this week and that there has been a big hike in fares on the railways at the same time as the quality of service will decline and services will be cut, can we debate in Government time the failures of Labour's nationalisation and renationalisation, showing that that only brings rip-off fares, a rip-off for the taxpayer and worse service?
Peter Hain: I have brought up my two sons reading "Postman Pat", so I was very sad to hear that Greendale post office was closing and that Mrs. Goggins was being made redundant, but we are all concerned about the future of rural post offices. The right hon. Gentleman will know, having served in the previous Government, that thousands of local post offices were closed under the last Conservative Government, and there have been many more closures than I would like under our Government.
However, the bank closed in my own village, Resolven, in the Neath valley—a former pit village, where I live. I tried to urge its customers—I think that it was Barclays bank—to switch their custom to the local post office, to make better use of it, because they could have had pretty much the same facilities there. Very few took up that opportunity. The problem is that people's changing lifestyles and habits in respect of how they manage their money are putting tremendous strain on local post offices, but the Government are working closely with Post Office Counters Ltd. to ensure that as many local post offices as possible are protected.
Mr. Harry Barnes: May I welcome the new Leader of the House to his post? I have obviously changed my opinion since I heckled him in the past at a Tribune rally just after he had moved over from the Liberal party. One of the jobs that he held with distinction was that of Minister for Energy and Competitiveness, so he is well aware of the schemes that operate for ex-coalminers who have suffered from chest complaints and vibration white finger. He will be aware that cokemen form one of the groups that miss out—apart from two cases, which were settled out of court. Can we have a debate about that matter? I believe that negotiations are taking place at the moment to try to ensure that cokemen are covered, and such a debate might add to those possibilities. I have a particular interest, as Avenue coke works was in my constituency and many people have suffered from chest problems because of it, yet they fall outside those provisions.
Peter Hain: First, I thank my hon. Friend for his historical reference. It was 26 years ago, if I am right, in September 1977 and, as I recall, it was a very friendly heckle. On his substantive point, I was privileged as Minister for Energy to drive forward—he was kind enough to say that I did so with distinction—the whole compensation programme for sick miners, their widows and families. We have continued to do that and
516
hundreds of millions of pounds have been paid out in every region and nation of Britain. 1 know that in Wales more than £300 million has been paid out, bringing to miners justice that was denied them year after year under the previous Conservative Government. The specific point that he makes, however, is important, and I shall draw it to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.
Several hon. Members rose—;
Mr. Speaker: Order. The House will realise that another statement is shortly to be made, and I want as many hon. Members to be able to ask questions as possible. I therefore hope that I have Members' cooperation and that questions will be brief.
Dr. Julian Lewis: May we have a statement from either the Home Secretary or the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport on the importance of television dramatists showing particular sensitivity towards the British Muslim community in the post-11 September world? I have in mind the recent episode of the television series "Spooks", which focused on an alleged suicide bomb plot being hatched in a British mosque. Given that so many British Muslims are as proud of being British as they are proud of being Muslim, and while I appreciate the need for topicality in such presentations, is it not important that the moderate Muslim community are not unfairly alienated?
Peter Hain: I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman and particularly with his statement that we are proud to have living in our communities many Muslims who count themselves equally proud to be British and of Muslim faith. That enriches our culture. I shall draw the points that he makes to the attention of the appropriate Secretaries of State. As for the issue concerned, a delicate balance has to be struck, as he has always acknowledged, between media freedom and the interests and sensitivities that he raises. I am sure that that will be borne in mind in the future.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: In his helpful reply, the Leader of the House invited my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) to come forward with a private Member's Bill on Iraq. What did he have in mind: a withdrawal from Iraq Bill? That would have considerable support at the moment from a number of troops who are sweltering in 44°, with the prospect of 50° in July. Can we have a statement on exactly what is happening in Iraq? We have seen the dreadful pictures on the front page of The Guardian. Incidentally, although I support military action in the Congo, ought we not to have a statement before we get involved in mission creep in central Africa?
Peter Hain: I shall bear in mind and draw to the attention of my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Defence Secretary the points that my hon. Friend makes in respect of Iraq and the Congo. I am sure, however, that, as he has indicated, he is proud that we have soldiers serving in the Congo seeking to bring stability to that war-torn and desperate country. He may have been mistaken in hearing me say that there ought to be a private Member's Bill on Iraq—

517
[Interruption.] If it sounded like that, I apologise to the House; I meant that there was an opportunity to apply for a private Member's debate. As we all do, I have among my constituents many servicemen serving in Iraq at the present time. I have been in touch with their families and I know of the desperately hot conditions in which they are serving with such distinction.
Richard Younger-Ross: I can assure the Leader of the House that it is very hot in Iraq at the moment, as I have just returned from a trip to Basra with a number of other Members last week. Although we were able to see the excellent work undertaken by our forces, what was transparent to me was the absence or near-invisibility of other Departments. In relation to the Department for International Development, very little seems to be happening in terms of humanitarian aid, and very little in terms of helping with the restructuring of the banking system. Considering the period that has elapsed since the end of fighting, certainly in southern Iraq, is it possible to have a debate or at least a statement in the House on humanitarian aid and restructuring?
Peter Hain: I shall certainly mention that to my right hon. and noble Friend the Secretary of State for International Development. As is known to the House in one way or another, she is anxious to visit Iraq but she has been advised that the security circumstances may not permit her to do that as early as she wanted. She has every intention of doing so, however, and I will ensure that the hon. Gentleman's points are recognised.
Paul Flynn: During the consideration of the constitutional changes, precisely the same treatment and status were accorded to the Wales Office and Scotland Office, and the jobs of Secretary of State for Wales and Secretary of State for Scotland were also treated with precisely the same status. That would be justified if the powers enjoyed by the Welsh Assembly were the same as those enjoyed by the Scottish Parliament. Do we not need a debate to ensure that equality of treatment is matched by equality of powers?
Peter Hain: My hon. Friend has the opportunity to apply for such a debate. This is an opportunity for me to put it on record that my responsibilities as Secretary of State for Wales, as he implicitly acknowledges, are very different from those of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland—who may be about to appear before the House. I have responsibility for all the primary legislation affecting Wales, for negotiating on any transfer of function orders and for providing a partnership bridge between Cardiff Bay and Westminster, which happens almost daily, and certainly
518
weekly, as issues arise. That is not the position in Scotland, where powers have been devolved at the legislative level, too.
Mrs. Angela Browning: We are a United Kingdom, and long may we remain so. It becomes increasingly obvious, however, that in terms of status and recognition, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, not only in our constitution but in the proceedings of the House, have a discrete identity of their own. I feel that the Government have now started to divide England up. As a Member representing an English constituency, may I say that now that they have started the process of regionalisation, England too should be afforded the same recognition? Can time please be set aside for debates on issues that concern those of us who represent English constituencies and who recognise English matters? In the interest of fairness and justice, the time for that is now.
Peter Hain: There are plenty of such opportunities. The advantage that the hon. Lady, for example, has as an English MP over me and my colleagues who are Welsh MPs is that she can question and challenge Ministers across the board on English matters, whereas many policies have been devolved to the National Assembly for Wales, and Assembly Members are in the driving seat and in pole position to question and challenge in that regard. She therefore has considerable advantages, which she ought to recognise. On the question of dividing up Britain, we have united the nations of Wales and Scotland much more in the United Kingdom through devolution than would have been the case had the opportunity to govern their own affairs through the devolution settlement been denied to them still. It has been a huge success, and I believe that regional government for England will be an equally huge success in the future.
Tony Lloyd: Can we have an early statement on the kidnap of British nationals by a foreign Government? I refer specifically to those British nationals who have been held in Guantanamo Bay without charge against them for an unacceptably long time. I remind my right hon. Friend that there are reports now of suicide attempts among those held in Guantanamo Bay, and there are rumours that the Americans plan to build what has been described as a "death chamber". We ought to have some certainty about the future of British nationals being held in this outrageous fashion.
Peter Hain: I know that the Prime Minister is aware of the matter and is looking into it. I recognise the points that my hon. Friend has made and the close interest that he has taken in these matters.

Rail Fares
1.29 pm
The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Alistair Darling): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a statement about rail fares.
The Strategic Rail Authority will be setting out in detail the results of its consultation later today, but I thought that I should set out the changes for the benefit of the House.
Last July, the SRA initiated a fundamental review of rail fares policy. Today, after public consultation, it is publishing its conclusions, which I believe reflect a realistic balance between what the travelling passenger pays and what the taxpayer contributes.
First, let me set out the context. We inherited a railway that had suffered from decades of under-investment and was left traumatised by a botched privatisation and the upheavals that followed. At the same time, because of economic growth and because we have got more people into work, passenger use has gone up by a third in the past few years. In fact, it is now at its highest level since nationalisation in 1947.
We set up the Strategic Rail Authority to provide the leadership and strategic direction that had been lacking to get a grip on the problems that we inherited. Network Rail, a public interest company, is now operating the track in the public's interest. We are also making funding available to make up for decades of under-investment. This year, the Government are spending £73 million every week to improve the railways, and bringing in a similar amount from the private sector. We have the biggest replacement programme for rolling stock ever seen in this country: more than a third of all rolling stock is being replaced in five years, and about half of that is happening on London commuter routes. Some £9 billion is being spent to maintain and improve the west coast main line, which is enabling more services to run faster, and £3 billion is being spent on new trains and a new power supply south of the Thames, which, when complete, will allow for more services and longer trains. All this has to be paid for.
Performance has improved but there is still a long way to go, which is why we have needed to take sometimes difficult decisions to improve the reliability of services. The House may recall that earlier this year we took a lot of criticism for the cuts that the SRA made to the timetable. It cut 180 services from the 18,000 train services that run every day. It is early days yet, but the evidence is that the decision was right. In the first four weeks of the new timetable, the performance of Virgin Cross Country trains was significantly better than at the same time last year, and despite the removal of some services, there are still more Virgin Cross Country services running every weekday than there were a year ago.
We now reach another difficult and necessary decision in relation to rail fares. When the current rail fares policy was introduced in 1996, it was always intended for it to be reviewed after seven years. The SRA launched that review last year with a public consultation, and its conclusions are available in the Vote Office.
520
Let me explain the existing fares arrangements on which the SRA consulted. About 45 per cent. of rail fares revenue comes from regulated fares, which are saver fares—or standard returns if no saver existed in 1995—standard class weekly tickets and London commuter fares. Since 1999, they have increased annually at 1 per cent. below inflation. Forty per cent. of people travelling to work in central London go by train, so the regulation of commuter and certain other fares is very important. That is why fare regulation will remain in place. Of course, the House will know that there are many far cheaper fares available than the regulated fares. Saver fares, for example, are not necessarily the cheapest deal on offer. The majority of fare income comes from unregulated fares, which include open and first class tickets as well as Apex and other low-price fares at off-peak times, many of which are now much cheaper than they were in the past.
The consultation showed that there was wide agreement that the existing policy needed to change. The Rail Passengers Council, the industry and local authorities all said that continuing to peg regulated fares below inflation was simply not sustainable.
There are only two main sources of funding for the railways: fares and the taxpayer. We have to strike the right balance between what the passenger pays and what the taxpayer pays. No nation in Europe has a passenger railway that runs without any form of subsidy, and nor do the United States or even Japan. Four years ago, rail fares covered 72 per cent. of the cost of running and improving the railway. That is now down to around 53 per cent., and the taxpayer pays the rest.
As I said, we have to ensure that there is a reasonable balance between what the taxpayer pays and what the farepayer pays. The SRA concluded that regulated fares should continue but that they should rise by 1 per cent. more than inflation—the retail prices index—from January 2004 for three years. It also examined the link between fares and performance. The mechanism put in place at the time of privatisation was supposed to link performance and ticket prices, but it has been widely discredited and there is no support for its continuation.
Finally the SRA's review considered the scope of regulated fares. There are two considerations on the regulation of saver fares. First, they are not necessarily the cheapest fare—the name is somewhat misleading. Secondly, they can result in the first off-peak trains being far more crowded than peak trains. Therefore, the SRA will work with train operators with a view to replacing the existing regime by 2006 with a better one that is more suited to passengers' needs. Saver fares will continue until 2006 unless it is possible to introduce a better regime earlier, provided that the proposal demonstrates clear benefits for passengers and taxpayers.
I believe that we need to do still more to encourage more people to travel by train, which is why I am asking the SRA and the industry to work together to develop a national discount rail card to achieve that. It is also why we are investing in the network. In the past few years, public spending on investment has increased by 164 per cent. We have taken the difficult decision that in future it is reasonable for fares to increase in line with investment. The franchise agreements that are in place mean that every extra £1 raised as a result of what has been announced today will go back into the railway network.

521
This was a difficult decision, but it is essential to strike the right balance between the contribution from the farepayer and the contribution from the taxpayer. We are sorting out the problems that we inherited. We are making the changes that we need to improve reliability and we are putting in place the investment vital for passengers and the future of the railway. I commend the statement to the House.
Mr. Tim Collins: I thank the Secretary of State for his statement and for his customary courtesy in letting me have an advance copy.
Let me begin with two points on which I hope there will be broad agreement throughout the House. First, many passengers would be prepared to pay more for a better service, and secondly, an expanding rail system would be better for both safety and the environment. However, surely it is clear that that is precisely what is not on offer and what will not be delivered by the fare rises that the Secretary of State announced. Is he not asking passengers and taxpayers to pay more and more for less and less? Is he not replacing fares that are falling in real terms with fares that will rise in real terms? Does he concede that British rail fares are already the highest in Europe and that he said today that he wants them higher still? Yet, is he not presiding over a halt—indeed, a reversal—of rail expansion as many major infrastructure projects are shelved as money for the long term is gobbled up by the complete collapse of day-to-day cost control of the maintenance budget?
Will the Secretary of State confirm that the cuts to Virgin Cross Country services to which he referred are just the start? Will he confirm that further cutbacks on other rail franchises are in the pipeline and tell us today which services will be chopped? Will he confirm that he has abandoned the target in the 10-year transport plan of a 50 per cent. increase in rail passenger numbers?
Why are there more late-running trains now than before? The Secretary of State cannot blame a lack of long-term investment, because train performance was much better three years ago than it is now. He cannot blame the Conservative party, because even 18 months ago his predecessor said:
"There can be no more excuses. It's our responsibility. We can't blame the Tories any more."
He cannot blame the Hatfield crash in 2000, because train performance was better in 2001 than in 2002.
The Secretary of State has come up with a new explanation. He says that trains are late because there are too many of them, so he is axing a lot. He might be on to a point, because even I cannot deny that a train cannot arrive late if it does not set out at all. Do passengers not deserve better than that? Surely the real truth is that trains are running later while we are all paying more because of the Government's botched renationalisation of Railtrack.
Network Rail is expected to overspend its budget by a staggering £12 billion in the period to 2006. Will the Secretary of State confirm the Financial Times report that if Network Rail accounted for its assets in the same way as Railtrack, its losses in the past financial year would not have been the reported £290 million but £2.5 billion? Does he agree with the verdict of the rail regulator that the problem with Network Rail is that a complete absence of financial discipline has produced an explosion in costs?
522
If passengers and taxpayers are wondering why all that extra money, all those extra fares that the Secretary of State has announced and all the money that he is spending like water are buying a worse service, not a better one, has not The Daily Telegraph this morning provided the answer? Does he expect Back Benchers on either side of the House to be happy to discover that his Department will be footing a bill for £58,000—more than any Back Bencher's salary—just for the taxis hired by one of his sets of advisers for the period when Railtrack was in administration?
Will the Secretary of State comment on the fact that one signalling company told me that under Network Rail it costs more than £50,000 to apply for a simple contract to move one signal box 6 ft? Will he recognise that, although Conservative Members accept that there can be no return to Railtrack—not least because of what his Government did to its shareholders—taxpayers, shareholders and fare-paying passengers alike deserve none the less something a great deal better than the shambles that Network Rail has become under his supervision?
Today the Secretary of State said that he will replace fares falling in real terms with fares rising in real terms; replace an expansion in train services with a cutback in rail services; and replace falling subsidies paying for more trains with rising subsidies paying for fewer trains. Under him, we have later trains, fewer trains, and now, vastly more expensive trains. Is that not the worst bargain in Britain? Is it not clear that we do not have the promised integrated transport policy, but instead a disintegrated transport policy? Do passengers and taxpayers alike not deserve the full-time energies of a full-time Secretary of State to sort out that complete shambles?
Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman would have a little more credibility—no wonder he is laughing— if he had a single policy to his name or a single strategy that he thinks would improve things.
Railtrack was a disaster for the railways. If privatisation was bad, what Railtrack did in the years when it was in charge was disastrous. There was no proper cost control and it did not understand its assets. We have to get on and deal with that legacy. Network Rail, to its credit, is doing things that Railtrack never did. For example, it is getting proper control of the costs, understanding the state of the network and ensuring that it can deliver a safe and reliable railway. Of course that will take time and of course people are frustrated, but the hon. Gentleman did not have a single word to say about what he would do except to hark back, rather fondly I thought, to Railtrack. The friends of Railtrack are a very small group, even smaller than the present Tory parliamentary party.
The hon. Gentleman rightly said that if passengers are to pay more, they should expect improvements. Let me give examples of improvements. On London commuter lines, brand new rolling stock has replaced the old slam-door stock on the London Victoria to Brighton line. Something like 2,000 new railway carriages are in place, with more on order. In addition, a new electricity supply is being installed south of the river. I mention that because it comes back to Railtrack's performance. Anyone who knew shat brand new, more powerful trains were coming on to the line should have thought

523
about the electricity supply that was installed in the 1930s and asked whether it would be capable of running modern trains. Of course it was not capable of that, which meant that Network Rail had to find another £1 billion to put things right.
The west coast main line is receiving investment now. The improvements are disruptive while they take place, but as a result of the decisions we took last year, the work will be finished two years earlier than expected. An hour will be taken off the Glasgow journey. There will be a two-hour running time to Manchester and four trains an hour to Birmingham. That is an example of how improvements are coming on.
The hon. Gentleman asked about changes to Virgin services. It is essential to have a timetable that works, but not all the delays and problems of reliability are caused by congestion. Issues such as fleet reliability must also be taken into account. For example, when GNER completed the upgrading of all its locomotives on the east coast main line, it improved reliability dramatically. Frankly, the railway is doing now what it should have been doing years ago: managing the system as one railway.
It is pretty clear from what the hon. Gentleman said that he is against fares increasing. That is a credible position to take, but one of two things follows from that: either taxes have to go up to pay for the investment or, more likely, wholesale cuts in services—perhaps of 20 per cent.—will be necessary. At some stage, he will have to face up to reality. The money for the railways comes from two places: the fare-paying passengers or taxation. If he is against fares increasing, either taxes have to go up or services have to be cut. One day, perhaps he will tell us which it is.
Mr. Don Foster: I welcome without reservation the Secretary of State's proposals for a national discount rail card, which is long overdue. However, given that rail fares have already risen significantly above the rate of inflation, and the cost of motoring has fallen, how can he seriously believe that further fare increases will persuade people to get out of their cars and on to rail so that we start to reduce the remorseless increase in congestion on our roads? Where is the joined-up thinking? Have not rail passengers in the south-east already seen a significant increase in fares as a result of changes to the network rail card? That was a fare increase by stealth.
Surely the Secretary of State must acknowledge that he is giving the impression that he wants to manage the railways to improve reliability by significantly reducing the number of trains, and to reduce costs by significantly reducing the number of passengers by constantly ratcheting up the fares of those services. In the case of managed franchises and those non-managed franchises through the fares incentive adjustment programme, surely he must also acknowledge that the vast majority of the money from increased fares will go directly back into the SRA.Will he at least give an absolute assurance that we will not have a grand announcement from the Secretary of State some time in the future about yet more Government investment in the railways, when everyone knows that that money will have come from fare-paying passengers?
524
The Secretary of State says that we must face up to realities, so why is his statement devoid of any reference to the urgent need to address escalating costs within the railways? Is he not aware of the significant increase in the number of managers within the train operating companies? Is he not aware of the significant increase in the number of staff and in the use of consultants by the SRA? Is he not aware of the astronomical costs that are charged for renewal and maintenance on our railways? He himself acknowledged that it costs four times as much to build a lift shaft on the railways as it would to build it anywhere else. Why is that not the crucial and first priority of the Government when they tackle the problems on our railways?
We may well have one of the worst rail services in Europe. We certainly have the highest fares in Europe, if not the world. Yet under this Government, train cancellations have increased by 50 per cent. and delays have doubled. Surely if we are to increase rail fares further above the rate of inflation, passengers will simply pay more and get significantly less.
Mr. Darling: Again, the hon. Gentleman's difficulty is that he has not advocated an alternative way to improve the railways. I happened to notice that in relation to spending, the Liberal Democrats' economic spokesman made it clear that they pledge to do everything they can within current budgets. In other words, no more money is available. I also notice that they have to decide whether new pledges could be better delivered by the private sector as a first port of call. I think that came as something of a surprise to him and some of his colleagues.
On escalating costs, as I have acknowledged many times, it is essential for the whole industry—not just Network Rail, but the train operating companies as well—to get a grip of the costs. I understand some of the historical problems they face. To be fair for one moment to Railtrack, part of the regime it inherited from British Rail also had the problem that costs for installing points varied from region to region, between different parts of British Rail, because the unit costs were very different. It is only now, under a completely different management with different disciplines, that Network Rail is beginning to get to grips with those costs and starting to drive them down. However, we cannot get away from the fact that it is necessary to make up for decades of under-investment. The reason we are spending £73 million of public money at the moment is that we have to make up for the deficit in investment that we inherited. BR used to replace 500 miles of track a year. Under privatisation, only 200 miles of track a year were replaced. This year, 740 miles of track are being replaced or upgraded. The money is essential, but I agree with the hon. Gentleman about cost control.
As for prices and getting passengers on to trains, I said at the outset that the British railway system is carrying more passengers now than at any time since nationalisation in 1947, and there has been a 20 per cent. increase in the number of passengers. One reason is that the fares on offer are not simply the standard or regulated fares. For example, the standard class return fare for the London to Bristol journey is £80, the regulated saver fare is £36.40, and the Apex fare is £19. There are many examples of cheaper fares, and many passengers, from both the hon. Gentleman's constituency and mine, are taking advantage of them.

525
We are sorting out the management problems that the hon. Gentleman referred to and putting the money in, so reliability is slowly but surely improving. Of course, there is a long way to go, but neither he nor the Conservative party has a coherent or credible policy.
Geraint Davies: Half the people in Croydon who go to work commute to London, so obviously they will not welcome any increase in fares. However, can you reassure my constituents that the extra money that is being gathered will be reinvested in more reliable, frequent and comfortable trains? Will you also undertake to make a review of regional—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Gentleman must use the correct parliamentary language.
Geraint Davies: Thank you very much for that advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
In giving those assurances, will my right hon. Friend undertake to review regional variations in fares across the country to ensure that people in London and the south-east get a fair deal?
Mr. Darling: I can certainly tell my hon. Friend that the money raised by those increases will go back into the railway network. As for Croydon, I mentioned earlier that about half of the new rolling stock is coming on to the London commuter routes, much of it on services that run through Croydon, so if they have not already done so, my hon. Friend and his constituents will be able to use new, modern rolling stock. I accept that they will not immediately see the benefits of replacing the power supply, but they will experience an improvement, as delays and breakdowns will be avoided. All of us want more to be done quickly, but our difficulty is that we have to do an awful lot because of decades of neglect of our railway system by successive Governments.
Mr. John Wilkinson: May I tell the right hon. Gentleman, who will be viewed by Londoners as the Secretary of State for Scotland rather than the Secretary of State for Transport, that Londoners are getting a dreadful deal from the Government? Is it not preposterous that in the capital city, which already has the highest cost of living in Europe, Londoners should face over the next three years an increase in rail fares of 1 per cent. above inflation, whereas it used to be 1 per cent. below inflation? They have no assurance that they will get a better deal in future—all they know is that a review will be undertaken in three years' time of the regulated fare system. Judging from the Secretary of State's track record, there is no chance that they will get a more cost-effective deal in future.
Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman must face up to the fact that during the 18 years in which the Conservatives were in government, they did not make the necessary year on year investment that might have prevented some of those problems. The one big contribution that they made to the railways was privatisation, which was an utter shambles.
As for London commuter services, new rolling stock and carriages are being introduced, thus improving the quality of transport. As I said, we are replacing the
526
power supply south of the river. That should have been done years ago, but was not, because nobody thought it necessary. Improvements are being made, but the hon. Gentleman must come back to the central point, as must the hon. Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Mr. Collins). If the hon. Gentleman believes that passengers should not pay any more, one of two things follows—either taxes go up to pay for that or services are cut. He must choose.
Mr. Brian H. Donohoe: Surely, if we have to accept price increases, the service should improve. New infrastructure has been successfully introduced in my part of the world, but problems have been identified in two areas. First, at the busiest times, trains arrive consisting of three carriages instead of six. Secondly, again as a result of the railways' success, station car parks are full by 7 am. Can my right hon. Friend put more emphasis on those matters when talking to the Strategic Rail Authority?
Mr. Darling: One problem that we face—in some ways it is welcome—is that more people want to use the trains, but they are trying to use a system that was never designed for the current passenger load. That is why we are putting more money into the railways and replacing rolling stock. My hon. Friend's constituents will benefit, on some occasions at least, from the money that is going into the west coast main line. Local services are also receiving new money. Nobody would take lightly a decision to put up fares, but it is equally clear that the regime set up in 1995 was not sustainable. Interestingly, no significant body of opinion consulted by the SRA thought that it was. The Rail Passengers Council, for example, said that fares ought to go up in line with inflation. Nobody argued that the regime set up in 1995 was going to last, which I suspect is why the previous Government thought that it ought to be reviewed after seven years.
Sir George Young: In his statement, the Secretary of State referred to the need to strike a balance between the interests of farepayers and of taxpayers. He is right, of course, but is there not a need to strike another balance, which he did not mention, between the cost of travelling by public transport and the cost of travelling by private transport? If we want a balanced and sustainable transport policy, is it not important that the cost of travelling by public transport does not rise faster than the cost of travelling by private transport? Is it not a consequence of his announcement that that is exactly what will happen? The signal that he is giving people who are thinking of switching from private transport to public transport has changed from green to amber.
Mr. Darling: The right hon. Gentleman, I presume, is not arguing for an increase in motoring costs. If he is, I do not think that he will do so in his constituency. However, he is right that people make choices, which is why, two or three weeks ago, in common with a number of other people, I said that we needed to look at the question of road transport, how we can better manage demand for road space and so on. That is a long-term issue, but it clearly needs to be looked at. If people are to be encouraged to go on to the trains, reliability is

527
paramount—if the trains are not reliable, they will not win more passengers. Relative costs are important, but as I said in reply to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), many fares are not regulated. In fact, the majority of income comes from non-regulated fares, which offer very good deals for passengers and are one reason why train usage has gone up so much.
Mrs. Louise Ellman: The Secretary of State referred to discussions with train operators. Does he agree that it is also important for the SRA to consult passenger committees and regional authorities so that it can deliver a rail service that meets economic, environmental and social objectives? Has he had time to look at the Select Committee's report on railways in the north, which was published this morning? If so, can he explain how the fares policy announced today will relate to making an improved service for people in the north?
Mr. Darling: I have not had an opportunity to read that report. However, I am aware that there are a number of things that need to be done in relation to rail travel in the north. First, we must improve the reliability of the fleet, as there has been a problem with some trains in the north. Secondly, we must ensure that the track is reliable and is not prone to breakdowns. However, my hon. Friend is right that there are other issues, and local authorities and passenger transport executives can play a major role in ensuring that rail travel is attractive. Price is another factor, but we must ensure that the service is reliable and an attractive alternative to the car. If we can do that, we will get more people to use it.
I am pleased that there is much evidence, not least from the Mersey train service, that reliability has improved and, in the case of that service, reached approximately 90 per cent. A few years ago, reliability was bad, so we have an example of how things can be done.
Norman Baker: Is not the Secretary of State embarrassed to tell my constituents that they face an increase in ticket costs that is above inflation? Since 1974, the cost of rail travel has increased by 85 per cent. in real terms, whereas that of motoring has decreased. Is it his policy to increase rails fares and decrease motoring costs? The Government deal with congestion on roads by building more roads, and with congestion on trains by having fewer trains. Money spent on railways is considered to be subsidy, whereas that spent on roads is perceived as investment. Is not that a topsy-turvy transport policy?
Mr. Darling: Not really. I look forward to visiting Lewes to hear the hon. Gentleman advocate increasing the price of motoring to his constituents.
Norman Baker: He will hear that.
Mr. Darling: Sotto voce, I expect. The hon. Gentleman knows that there has been substantial investment—some £3 billion—in trains south of the river. The investment is in new rolling stock as well as track improvements. As I said, that must be paid for.
528
The money can come only from the fare-paying passenger or from taxation. There is no other way. That is why he and others who believe that we are wrong or that there is a better way must state the source of income that they favour. Perhaps, like the Tories, they should be upfront and say that they would cut the available services.
Mr. David Lepper: I welcome my right hon. Friend's comments about a national rail card and the investment in new rolling stock. However, many of my constituents, who constitute the captive cashbox for South Central trains and commute daily from Brighton—a high housing cost area—to London, will find it difficult to understand the increase in train fares. Will he consider reviewing the system of inflation plus I per cent. earlier than the three-year deadline that he specified? Will he also require the train operating companies and Network Rail to set out a clear timetable for the improvements that the investment brings so that my constituents understand what they will get for their money?
Mr. Darling: I travelled on the London to Brighton line recently. My hon. Friend knows that it has new rolling stock, which is expensive, good and reliable. Unfortunately, as is the way of things, it must be paid for. As I said earlier, it can be financed from only one of two sources. The price of an annual season ticket for London to Brighton will increase by approximately £2 a week as a result of my announcement today. I know that any increase is unwelcome, but if we are to invest the money that we need in the railways—in the track, the power supply or the stock—it must be financed. We cannot get away from that. A railway cannot be upgraded and improved for nothing.
I wish that successive Governments—in the past, Labour Governments were as guilty as Tory Governments—had done the same as other countries and ensured that we invested money in the railways decade after decade. Our problem is that we now have to make up for years of underinvestment quickly.
I greatly welcome my hon. Friend's comments on the rail card, but my announcement on fares is for three years, and I cannot undertake to reconsider the matter before the end of that time.
Bob Spink: The Secretary of State's price-volume analysis is wrong. If we increase the number of passengers, we increase the funds. We should therefore increase capacity, not fares. Fenchurch Street passengers have suffered too long. Will he ask the Strategic Rail Authority to consider a new terminus station at Canvey Island, which would create an increase in capacity, with a link to the Pitsea interchange, and to reduce c2c fares so that Fenchurch Street passengers can get the decent deal that they deserve?
Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman mentions c2c. He knows that the line is one of the most reliable in the country and has much improved from the misery line that it once was. That happened through investment, which had to be financed, and through better management.

529
I note the hon. Gentleman's comments about wanting a new station in his constituency. It never ceases to amaze me that Conservative Members oppose raising money but greatly favour spending it. They have obviously been listening to the Liberal Democrats. If we support improvements such as those on c2c, and want more stations and better interchanges, they must be paid for. I have tried to strike the right balance between what the fare-paying passenger and the taxpayer pay. It is not easy, but it is right to ensure that the balance is fair and sustainable.
Claire Ward: I welcome the negotiations and discussions on the national rail card. Many of my constituents are commuters and railway users. They will want to know that the increase in rail fares means a better service than the current service, not only on commuter services but on the west coast main line. I am worried that, as we increase rail fares, we may also increase the number of people on the roads. An individual is six times more likely to be killed or injured on the roads than on the rails. What assessment has my right hon. Friend made of the additional health, social services and benefits costs to the taxpayer that will result from the rail fare increase?
Mr. Darling: I welcome my hon. Friend's comments on the national rail card. I am sure that it will be valuable and another useful way in which to encourage more people to use trains.
The west coast main line illustrates my point. When the improvements are completed—the first wave will be evident from the end of next year—they will allow more trains to run into Euston, greater frequency and far more capacity. After a back-of-an-envelope calculation, Railtrack believed that such improvements would cost £2 billion. By the time the company left, the figure had increased to £13 billion. The current cost, according to Network Rail and the SRA, is £9 billion. That is a huge investment, which will make a huge difference to my hon. Friend's constituents and to commuter lines as well as long-distance lines on the west coast.
Again, I stress that the investment must be financed, one way or another. Our transport system—not only the railways but the roads—faces tremendous financial pressures not only on the railways but on the roads. If we want to get more people on trains, we must ensure that the trains are reliable, comfortable and an attractive alternative to cars. We can and will do that but we need to face the fact that we must get the right, reasonable balance between what the taxpayer and the passenger pay.
Dr. Vincent Cable: How far have the Secretary of State's remit and financial calculations taken Eurostar's growing crisis into account? Unless tackled, uncompetitive fares, decreasing usage and massive losses will quickly lead to demands for a large-scale Government rescue operation.
Mr. Darling: I would not bank on that. Eurostar has to ensure that it gets its finances in order and that it runs a sufficiently attractive proposition to get passengers. The channel tunnel rail link, which is the first major new rail line in Britain for more than 100 years, will open
530
later this year, and enable faster journey times between London, Paris and Brussels. That should give the train company an opportunity to attract more passengers.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: As an annual guest at the quarterly meeting of the RMT Scottish at Perth, what should I sensibly say about the balance between the 72 per cent. four years ago and the 53 per cent. today? What is the ideal balance that the Secretary of State supports?
As a supporter of the national discount rail card, may I ask when it is likely to be introduced and what the Secretary of State hopes it will achieve?
As a member of the friends of Nirex—a body that is even smaller than the friends of Railtrack—I ask my right hon. Friend what his attitude is to charging for the transfer by rail of hazardous substances?
Mr. Darling: On the last point, it might be better if I were to write to my hon. Friend rather than trying to hazard a guess as to what the position might be. I agree that the rail card will be very welcome, but the object must be to encourage people who do not use trains at present to use them with the card. We want to avoid a situation in which people who would have made a rail journey anyway use the card, so that the Government have to subsidise the journey unnecessarily. The object must be to get more people on to the trains. I agree with those hon. Members who have said that one of the objectives must be to get people who do not use the railway to use it. The discounts now being offered by GNER on return tickets mean that they can be bought for a remarkably small amount, and that is one of the reasons why the trains are so crowded. The other reason is that, thanks to a large amount of money being spent on the track, journey times are improving and the service is becoming more reliable.
My hon. Friend asked me what he should say to the RMT. I can think of many things that might be said to the RMT, but sadly, I have not been invited to address it. There is no ideal scientific balance between what the fare-paying passenger should pay and what the taxpayer should pay. I just think that it has got out of balance at the moment. I know that people do not want this increase, but unless we take steps to ensure a proper, sustainable balance, we shall reach the stage at which the railways start to run out of money. When the Conservatives privatised things, I believe that they envisaged that the railways would decline and run out of money, which is why they were not that bothered about it. I believe in the railways, however, and I am determined to ensure that they are properly managed and properly funded.
Roger Casale: My constituents in south-west London want to see much more money being spent on the rail service. Does my right hon. Friend accept, however, that if we are to do this not only through increased public investment but through limited fare increases, we need a service that is not only reliable and efficient but much more responsive to customer needs? If, having waited in a queue for 15 minutes because stations are understaffed and the automatic ticket machines are not working, customers are unable to get the through ticket that they need, we

531
are unlikely to see the benefit of those increased fares, because many people will choose not to travel by rail at all.
Mr. Darling: I agree: the whole experience of going by train needs to be attractive. People do not want to be held up, and they do not want the trains to be late. At least some of my hon. Friend's constituents will be pleased to know that South West Trains is about to introduce a new fleet of trains, which will be a vast improvement on the old slam-door trains that should have been replaced years ago. I suspect that those trains were running when he and I were children, if not before. That is a welcome investment, but I return to the same point: people will welcome all this new investment, and reliability will improve, but in their heart of hearts, people know that we have to put money into the system, and that it has to be paid for in some way—either through fares or through taxation. However, I strongly agree with everything that has been said today about the industry having to understand that if it does not get a grip on reliability and costs, it will face an uphill struggle. Based on what I have seen, however, I am optimistic. I know that this will take time, and there are no quick fixes, but I believe that it can be done. Indeed, for the good of the transport system in this country, it needs to be done.

BILL PRESENTED
  CORPORATE RESPONSIBILITY
  Linda Perham presented a Bill to make provision for certain companies to produce and publish reports on environmental, social and economic and financial matters; to consult on proposed operations of the company; to specify certain duties and responsibilities of directors; to establish a right of access to information held by companies; to specify the powers and duties of the Secretary of State; to provide for remedies for aggrieved persons; and for related 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 129].

Point of Order
2.13 pm
Mr. Andrew Robathan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Very unusually, we are about to debate the conduct of investigations into past cases of abuse in children's homes. In the recent reshuffle, a Minister for Children was appointed for the first time. Surely this subject should fall within her remit, but the Minister for Children, the hon. Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge) is not here. Furthermore, there was an amazing attack on the hon. Lady in the Evening Standard on Monday—I do not know whether it was justified or not—which particularly pertained to the conduct of investigations into child abuse in children's homes—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. I think that I can deal with the hon. Gentleman's point of order straight away. It is entirely a matter for the Government whom they seek to put on the Treasury Bench to represent them in debates such as these.

ESTIMATES DAY
ESTIMATES, 2003–04
  Children's Homes (Investigations)

    HOME OFFICE
    [Relevant documents: The Fourth Report from the Home Affairs Committee, Session 2001–02, on The Conduct of Investigations into Past Cases of Abuse in Children's Home, HC836, and the Government's reply thereto (Cm. 5799); and the Home Office Annual Report for 2003 (Cm. 5908).]
    Motion made, and Question proposed,
    That further resources, not exceeding £17,181,299,000, be authorised for use for the year ending on 31st March 2004, and that a further sum, not exceeding £7,391,463,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund for the year ending on 31st March 2004 for expenditure by the Home Office.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]
    2.14 pm
    David Winnick: This debate was due to be opened by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) who, as the House knows, was Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee up to his Government appointment last week. He has gone on to higher things—or lower, as the case may be. I have agreed to carry out the Chairman's duties on a temporary basis until a permanent replacement is duly appointed by the Committee.
    Let me say at the outset that this report in no way minimises child abuse. Acts of abuse, physical and sexual, are indeed dreadful crimes, often leading to lasting damage and trauma to individuals. The police are certainly right to treat it with the utmost seriousness, and we would all be disappointed if that were not the case. However, it is also important that justice should be done and that the innocent should not be convicted. The Committee received a large number of representations from people accused of child abuse who maintain their innocence, from their relatives, and from journalists, lawyers and colleagues. My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas), who I see is here today, also made vigorous representations to us on this issue. I understand that she is chair of the all-party group on abuse investigations.
    Members of the judiciary have also expressed concern. In our report we quote Judge Jonathan Crabtree, who, in 1999, having dismissed all charges against a defendant, expressed serious concerns over the difficulties of defending such allegations. This quote from the judge appears in our report:
    "Anyone who is in charge of children is vulnerable to allegations of assault from some dissatisfied or angry child, and if no complaint is made for months or years, how can any teacher, social worker, nurse defend themselves?…How is he or she going to be able to…prove his or her innocence when so much time has passed?"
    In recent years, the police have investigated large numbers of allegations of abuse said to have occurred many years ago in children's homes around the country.
    534
    Part of the difficulty is that such allegations go back so many years. The number of alleged suspects has been very large, and many lives have been damaged by the allegations, even in cases in which no charges were brought.
    The allegation of child abuse is easily made, but it is very difficult to recover from, even if the person concerned is vindicated as a result of police inquiries or before a court. In some instances, accused teachers or care workers—however vindicated—may never work again.
    Mr. A. J. Beith: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues for the work that they have done. To highlight what he is saying, the Committee has pointed out that in the Northumbria police area, where Operation Rose was carried out, 60 people were arrested but only five have been successfully prosecuted, with three cases outstanding. That adds up to a very large number of people whose lives have been ruined and whose career prospects have been destroyed.
    David Winnick: The right hon. Gentleman makes a valid point.
    In the last five years, 34 of the 43 police forces in England and Wales have been involved in investigations into allegations of abuse in children's homes and other institutions. I want to emphasise, on behalf of the Committee, that we do not criticise the police for doing this. Indeed, all hon. Members would agree that they would be criticised if they did not carry out their duties when allegations were made. In Merseyside alone, the police investigated 510 former care workers suspected of child abuse. Of those, 67 individuals were charged, leading to 36 convictions and nine acquittals. The remaining 22 cases were discontinued or dismissed in court. These investigations have had a very high failure rate. The Crown Prosecution Service rejects no less than 79 per cent. of cases referred by the police, against an average of 13 per cent. for all types of charge. I would have thought that those statistics should set alarm bells ringing.
    Child abuse cases differ from other criminal investigations in several ways, and we learned a lot as a result of our inquiry. First, they relate to events that may or may not have occurred 10, 20 or, indeed, 30 years ago. That gives rise to obvious questions of identification. For instance, there have been cases in which it has been shown that the accused was not working in a care home when his accuser was there. Often, such a conclusive defence is possible only because the relevant records have been preserved. What would have happened if they had not?
    Mr. Dominic Grieve: It is indeed a feature, which appears in the report, that in many cases the documents have been destroyed, notwithstanding the rule that documents and records need to be preserved in the case of child care for the rest of the child's life.
    David Winnick: Yes. I am sure that the Minister will deal with that point, because it is indeed relevant and people's reputations, as well as whether they end up in prison, could depend on records being preserved.
    Ms Meg Munn: Does my hon. Friend accept that sometimes the poor state of such records, as well as the fact that some may have been destroyed or are partial, can undermine the evidence given by children making allegations of abuse? Evidence that might have supported their stories, which so often rely on their individual recollections, may be missing. That, too, is a tragedy.
    David Winnick: Again, that is a valid point, and surely it shows the need for records to be preserved. I do not think that there is any dispute about that.
    Mr. Edward Garnier: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for letting me intervene at this stage. On the question of records, may I give him a practical example of how things can go badly wrong?
    In my county of Leicestershire a few years ago, the city of Leicester was separated to become a unitary authority. It established its own social services department. As a consequence, employees of the previous Leicestershire county council social services department had their employment records split between the city and the county. In a number of cases, that has led to the losing or misplacing of records relevant to, for example, Operation Magnolia, which took place in my county. Will the hon. Gentleman bear that in mind when he considers the question of the safe keeping of records?
    David Winnick: Yes, I will. I say to the hon. and learned Gentleman, as I said to he hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), that it is important for those records to be kept. I repeat myself, but I hope that the Minister, as I am sure she will, takes on board what has been said from both sides of the House about the need for evidence and for records to be kept, both of which are important. The hon. and learned Gentleman has given us an illustration of what can happen as a result of a local authority reorganisation.
    Secondly, there are cases with no physical evidence, no forensic material and no written records. Sometimes, even the building in question has been demolished. Thirdly, the prosecution case almost always relies on the word of the alleged victim or victims. Fourthly, the willingness of the court to accept what we describe as similar fact evidence—that is, corroboration by the quantity, rather than the quality, of similar accusations—has led the police to engage in what is called trawling.
    The police and the Home Office become rather disturbed or upset by the word "trawling", but that is the word that we have used. There is trawling using a wide net of former care home residents, which relates to finding out from a large circle of people, who were involved or not involved as the case may be, whether there is any evidence to support the allegations. There have been accusations that the police, at least in the early days of that practice, were rather careless in their corroboration of allegations.
    Mrs. Janet Dean: Does my hon. Friend acknowledge that we heard evidence in the Home Affairs Committee of original complainants dropping their case while others brought into the investigation by the police carried on with theirs, which went to court?
    David Winnick: Yes, indeed. My hon. Friend makes a good point.
    536
    David Rose, the special investigations reporter for The Observer, if not currently, then certainly in the past, is concerned about what he believes to be a number of miscarriages of justice. He has taken a prominent role, and some may have seen a television programme in which he featured. David Rose told us in oral evidence:
    "The problem with trawling as it is now carried out is that it is an absolutely unregulated process and it is a process which…is almost tailor-made to generate false allegations."
    Some may disagree with how Mr. Rose puts his point, but he certainly holds pretty strong opinions on the subject.
    Mr. Gwyn Prosser: Does my hon. Friend remember receiving evidence of a clear indication that the basic police rules—the codes and guidance—are completely ignored during such trawling exercises? Does he recall a former children's home resident saying that he felt that he was bullied into making a complaint and that he was given the names of specific people from his former homes who had serious allegations against them? It was even suggested which forms of abuse had taken place. Does not that show how dangerous trawling is and how important it is to have video recording? Does my hon. Friend share my disappointment that that has not been taken up?
    David Winnick: We make our recommendation on the recording of questioning. I well recall the evidence given to us, which my hon. Friend mentions. It could be argued that the police are simply carrying out their duty in investigating those serious allegations. The police have a duty and responsibility in all these matters, although I am concerned that the Home Office response more or less dismisses the trawling situation.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    David Winnick: I will give way in a moment. That situation is dismissed, and the police are rather sensitive to our using the word "trawling". I hope that the Minister takes on board the points that have been made, not least by my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Prosser). I shall take the interventions fairly, so I give way first to the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier).
    Mr. Julian Brazier: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who is being generous in giving way. Surely the point on so-called trawling is that children are desperately vulnerable. By definition, there is no corroborative evidence, except what can be found from trawling. Although the police should never carry out the activity suggested by the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Prosser), if trawling were to discontinue, so would most genuine cases. The answer, surely, is to remove compensation payments, which genuinely throw up false claims.
    David Winnick: I shall say whether we believe that trawling should continue, but I give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Singh), who is a member of the Committee.
    Mr. Marsha Singh: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Does he think that the central problem of trawling is that when a case gets to

    537
    court and there is a conviction, it leads to guilt based on the volume of allegations rather than the quality of the evidence?
    David Winnick: I shall refer to trawling, but I must give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), who takes a great interest in children's matters.
    Mr. Hilton Dawson: Does my hon. Friend not accept that someone who was abused as a child and has suppressed the memory of that abuse for a long time, perhaps because of threats they experienced during that abuse, would regard becoming the recipient of what could more fairly be called dip sampling as validation of their experience? They would have a real opportunity to unburden themselves of the abuse.
    David Winnick: Let me say immediately that if a child has been abused, no matter how many years have passed since the event, those responsible must be brought to justice. I hope that nothing said by me or recommended by the Committee, and nothing in any speeches or interventions made today, will give the impression that we do not want that to happen. If my hon. Friend has balanced the argument in that regard, nothing but good can come of it.
    As I have said, we have reservations about trawling, but we do not think it should be prohibited, whatever name is given to it. My hon. Friend clearly wishes to give it a different name. We have emphasised that the police have a statutory duty to investigate allegations of child abuse regardless of whether they relate to contemporary or to past events.
    The waters are often muddied by the prospect of compensation. That is another aspect that the Committee was not happy about. It has been suggested that the desire for financial compensation has been a motivating factor in many accusations, and even that on occasion the police have mentioned the prospect of compensation to potential witnesses. We do not suggest that that is typical, but it is certainly a complicating factor.
    The Committee took evidence from a firm of lawyers which, at the time, was dealing with 20 group actions and 800 individual claims. Clearly child abuse allegations were big business to that firm, at least. I do not suggest that the firm was acting in a way that was not proper, but those facts must give rise to some concern about the way in which such cases are handled.
    Bob Russell: The hon. Gentleman has said that the firm was not behaving illegally, but does he agree that it was trawling for people whose cases it could take up in order to make a packet financially?
    David Winnick: That may well be so. The evidence we were given shows that a former police officer was working for the firm at the time of our inquiry. We expressed some reservations about that.
    Mr. Grieve: I assume that, given the changes in legal aid funding, the solicitors were handling the cases on a "no win, no fee" basis. A result favouring their clients would therefore have been of direct advantage to them.
    David Winnick: Indeed.
    538
    Paragraphs 109 to 115 deal with compensation, and explain the difference between claims pursued through the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority and those pursued through the civil courts. As might be expected, the firm of solicitors to whom I referred used the civil courts, in which there is no limit to the amount that can be paid in compensation. That does not apply under the criminal injuries compensation scheme.
    The Committee concluded that it was likely that a significant number of miscarriages of justice had occurred. My hon. Friend the Minister will probably say that that is not the case, for that is the substance of the Government's response to our report. The report calls for clear prescriptive guidelines to cover future police investigations, and for proper recording of police interviews, which has already been mentioned. It also recommends that after 10 years prosecutions should proceed only with the court's permission, and states:
    "The use of similar allegations, as evidence to corroborate a charge"
    should be admitted only
    "if it bears a striking similarity to the evidence related to the charged offence".
    It recommends the drawing up of guidelines governing the relationship between the police and personal injuries solicitors.
    The Government's reply was published in April. I am sure that it will not surprise my hon. Friend the Minister to learn that, in the main, it was not as encouraging as we hoped it would be. It reflected, to an extent, the views expressed to the Committee by the Association of Chief Police Officers. Nevertheless, I am sure that we will all listen carefully to what the Minister says later.
    Mr. Brazier: Prohibiting the citing of other cases as corroborating evidence unless they were very similar to the case being dealt with would return us to a time when prosecutions were almost impossible. In those days a string of children would make allegations against an abuser. It would be his word against theirs, and because cases were often tried separately it was possible to clear him of every alleged offence, although the overall weight of evidence against him might be huge.
    David Winnick: That is a point of view, but it should be seen alongside the need to be certain that those who are charged—and certainly those who are convicted—are guilty. None of us would like to be falsely charged and then imprisoned. What is important, ultimately, is for justice to be done.
    Ms Munn: It is important to have clear evidence, but is it not also important to understand the nature of child sex abuse? Rather than relying on striking similarity, should we not view the evidence in the context of what we know child abusers do? They may begin with minimal abuse, which then becomes much more extensive. That might not constitute striking similarity, but it would fit the known pattern of behaviour among child abusers.
    David Winnick: My hon. Friend's point has much in common with that made by the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier).
    Let me repeat what I said at the outset. Child abuse is undoubtedly a dreadful crime. We would not want our own children to be subjected to any form of abuse, and if we do not want that to happen to our own children, we do not want it to happen to any children. If convicted, those responsible—particularly those who are given the responsibility of looking after children by society and abuse their position—must of course go to prison. But however strongly we feel about that—and we in the House of Commons must obviously feel strongly about it—it is important that those who have not been responsible for child abuse should not find themselves in prison as a result of false allegations.
    We have looked into the matter, and we have recognised the complicating factors. Ultimately, however, we believe that there have been miscarriages of justice. We think that the introduction of certain changes would make it more difficult for innocent people to be sent to prison. I hope that my hon. Friend and other Ministers will consider our recommendations carefully. We made them in good faith, and, as I have said, on the clear understanding that those who abuse children should be duly punished; but we think that the changes we recommend would improve the overall position.
    2.38 pm
    Mr. Tim Boswell: I congratulate the Home Affairs Committee on its report, and the hon. Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) on his balanced account of it. I also—in anticipation, as it were—thank the hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas), with whom I serve as an officer on the all-party group on abuse investigations, for the painstaking and determined way in which she has pursued these issues and contributed to the Committee's evidence. She has, I think, helped to influence thinking on a difficult and sensitive matter.
    I welcome the new Minister to what is a demanding position, although I am less sympathetic to the Home Office's response to the report by the Select Committee on Home Affairs. As a number or us may have done, I came into the issue as a result of a case of a single constituent, who is in prison to this day, although his close family and friends continue to protest his innocence. I am aware of another case involving a constituent that has not hit the headlines. After much intrusive procedure—that person had a young family—he was eventually left in peace bit with one charge left on the file as a settlement.
    The motivation, which has been properly set out by the acting Chairman of the Select Committee, should be simply to see a fair process in the judicial system. We should all make it clear to the Minister that we are not seeking to rehearse individual cases in this forum today. I thought that the Chairman's summary of the difficulties that are set out in the report was exemplary. I need only sketch them briefly.
    540
    This all took place a long time ago. The evidence is likely to be all by word of mouth, with virtually no forensic evidence, unlike in, say, a modern case, where computer data, for example, may be brought in evidence. There are ample opportunities for, to use an old-fashioned phrase—it is a nasty practice that began under the Romans, so I use their word for it—dilation, informing, sneaking on people in order to damage them, whether or not there is justification for that, and for the settling of scores. There is also the element of compensation, which rightly concerned the Select Committee. There is the fact many of the witnesses or potential witnesses have had a chequered subsequent history such that their individual evidence may not be compelling and it has to be, as it were, bulked out in order to make a case. That is not to gainsay rightful probing, as my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) said. We must strike the right balance.
    Perhaps the more general point I need to make is that no one in the House has a brief for the support of paedophiles or for sweeping such issues under the carpet, however long ago they may or may not have occurred.
    Mr. Dawson: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that other factors relating to these issues concern the attitude of victims towards the abuse that they have suffered, and the shame, embarrassment, humiliation and difficulties that they have in expressing that often in a courtroom?
    Mr. Boswell: I have no problem with that; it is why the matter has to be dealt with very carefully and sensitively.
    I have no problem with a chief constable seeking not merely to meet targets to get people inside if they have done despicable things but making uncomfortable the undetected, silent offender who may not sleep well at night if he knows that he may be pursued on the matter, but all the evidence we have seen from other contexts is that paedophilia or suspicions thereof can engender uncontrolled emotions. Rage at the exploitation of children is understandable, but it may not always serve the interests of justice. In particular, the weighting of evidence may be miscalculated. Frankly, the burden of proof may be in some danger of reversal. The essential issue is whether, given that there have been cases which have resulted in a reversal or quashing of the verdict or a miscarriage of justice, there are other cases in consideration, some of which were brought before the Select Committee and others of which are known to the all-party group on abuse investigations.
    Mr. Beith: I was struck by the hon. Gentleman's point about the reversal of the burden of proof, because it related to something I read in the Government's response, in which they use the extraordinary sentence:
    "Rarely is there clear substantiation that these allegations have indeed been deceptions."
    It may require a wet towel and careful study to try to make sense of that but it appears to mean that the burden of proof has been reversed.
    Mr. Boswell: The right hon. Gentleman is perceptive in that comment. There is still a lot of this about. There will, frankly, be more to come. The duty we need to set before the Home Office is to ensure that past cases are

    541
    reviewed expeditiously and thoroughly and that the system takes more care in relation to future cases. I was not encouraged by the tone of the Government's response. I cite in evidence paragraph 10, for example, which states:
    "The Government therefore respects the views of the Committee"—
    it should do—
    "but does not share its belief in the existence of large numbers of miscarriages of justice."
    That statement may be formally unexceptionable but it implies that a few miscarriages of justice are all right, provided that most people were rightly convicted. I happen to take the view that one miscarriage of justice is unacceptable.
    Mr. Grieve: Does my hon. Friend share perhaps some disquiet that paragraph 10 of the Government's response disagrees with the suggestion that a range of agencies are
    "unaware of these deceptions and/or unwittingly assist them; or are complicit in their fabrication"?
    In paragraph 36 of the report, a clear example is given of exactly that.
    Mr. Boswell: My hon. Friend is right to point that out. My view is that we cannot ask or expect the police to back out of their duties to investigate historic allegations of abuse, or indeed current ones. Therefore, it is all the more important that such investigations should be carried out scrupulously and fairly. I also believe that the use of various tools as recommended by the Select Committee needs active consideration. I mention particularly video recording of witness evidence. I notice, for example, that at a recent meeting in the House in the context of persons with learning difficulties, vulnerable persons who may be victims even in such cases, the Director of Public Prosecutions suggested that there may be some virtue in video recording. I think that he is on the right lines.
    As the Government say in paragraph 35 of their response, and with this I found myself more in sympathy, a clear, accurate and, if I may add, comprehensive and unexpurgated record of approaches to witnesses should be established, whether or not that is in video form. I think that that would then be available to the defence on disclosure.
    There is an issue of balance on a matter that has not been much rehearsed so far: the issue of publicity and, in particular, celebrity evidence. I personally still incline to the view that we should withhold those names because the attraction of putting someone's name in the frame is just too great. Recently, the accuser of a former colleague of ours in the House has been sent to prison in that regard. Whether that results in a sufficient deterrent against that sort of practice I know not.
    The law of "similar fact", which is another matter on which the Select Committee commented and hence the Home Office responded, is another area of concern. Paragraph 55 of the Government's response states:
    "multiple accusations against an offender have a significance that derives from the unlikelihood that a person will be independently falsely accused of offences of a like nature."
    The crucial word is "independently". If it is a matter of 20 people, even people who are in prison currently, all independently saying that they remember that there was
    542
    a problem with that person, I might understand it. However, if it is in response to a systemic inquiry that makes certain assumptions, I have less sympathy with it.
    Ms Munn: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is possible to make inquiries of former residents of children's homes where allegations have been made in a way that does not name the suspected person and gives no indication of the particular concerns? That would be a valid process.
    Mr. Boswell: That is exactly the sort of proper practice with which I would have no difficulty. This is not a matter of sides. We are trying to tease out a common, good practice approach.
    I leave the House with three specific points.
    Mr. Brazier: Before my hon. Friend completes his speech, may I ask him to acknowledge that, until the various changes, many of which he has covered, took place, 15 years ago it was almost impossible to get convictions of child abusers? After a case in my constituency, the barrister said that she felt ashamed and disgusted that she had taken the case as it was so obvious that her client was guilty. The process in those days worked in such a fashion that he got off.
    Mr. Boswell: We have to seek a balance, but we cannot achieve it by swinging in the opposite direction and putting innocent people in prison.
    I have three concerns, and in setting them out I am trying to read the mind of the Home Office. First, in terms of the Home Office's own interests, it is wrong—although perhaps understandable—for it to try to defend the integrity of the judicial system by implying that everything is all tight, and that it is therefore better not to rock the boat by asking such questions. Secondly, I am concerned as to whether there is an underlying and subtler point in relation to informers. Many people in prison are police informers or are otherwise compromised, as it were. Are we talking about a way of ensuring that they continue to supply information to police officers, perhaps in respect of other investigations that have nothing to do with sex abuse? [Interruption.] The Minister appears to be surprised by that suggestion; if she can make inquiries and in turn surprise me, I should be delighted. However, I am worried about this issue, and given that informers are registered, perhaps we should look into it further.
    My third and final concern is that the Home Office response will be seen as the green light to a series of fresh allegations. Frankly, it would not be difficult to extend this measure to cover not only abuse in child care homes but, for example, the several choirmasters who were recently implicated in various activities. And there is the wholly separate issue of cot deaths and sudden infant deaths, and whether people, once they get into this frame of mind, will start to look in an uncritical way and make accusations that cannot really be substantiated.
    It would be terrible if, through not building the right safeguards into our procedures and attitudes, we in this House had to revert to these issues after a series of judicial disasters, with all the wreckage that that might bring to the lives of individuals—whether or not

    543
    anything had been done to them, whether or not they had committed offences themselves. We must be careful and ensure that the system delivers a fair outcome.
    2.52 pm
    Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas: I want to begin by thanking the members of the Home Affairs Committee for having the courage to take on this very difficult inquiry. I must also point out that, like the other members of the all-party group on abuse investigations, I am not a paedophile-lover or an advocate of paedophiles. Properly convicted sex offenders are the most repugnant form of humanity. Our interest in historical abuse investigations has always centred not on the outcome of police investigations—on whether a person is guilty or innocent—but on the integrity of the processes used by the police and the Crown Prosecution Service. To date, there is no way of independently checking the procedures used by either of those authorities.
    I am bitterly and hugely disappointed with the Government's response to the Home Affairs Committee's report, which constituted virtually a total rejection of all of the recommendations, excluding those that concur with existing Government policy. I want to reply to the Government's response and to ask the Minister to think again.
    I want to bring to Members' attention a statement presented to the Home Affairs Committee by Mark Merett. It reads as follows:
    "I feel I must make this statement after spending three years at a children's home in South Wales, which a is now at the centre of child abuse allegations. During my time at the school there was never any talk or rumour of child abuse, if anything of that nature had been going on everyone would have known about it. At night I shared a bedroom with three other boys who knew everything that was going on; if a burglary had been committed, everyone knew about it by breakfast time the next morning…
    I was interviewed by South Wales Police on three occasions and during these interviews I was amazed that the police openly named suspects who were known to me and they confirmed that these suspects had been named by other former residents. Even though I made the police aware of my medical condition (I am epileptic), they continued to pressurise me into making a complaint, which I did not do. I found the whole experience very distressing and I felt that I was being bullied by the police into making a complaint.
    I was horrified when I was asked during the interview, 'Did Mr B touch you up?, did he touch your penis? other people have complained that he did.'
    At this moment I was appalled and explained that nothing of that nature…went on at the school. The police pointed out that they had been in touch with other former residents who had made complaints. After hours of questioning, I still maintained that nothing ever happened to me, which is the truth."
    That is just one of many statements that we are aware of, and which say the same thing. In many ways, that statement is the source of our concerns, and with that in mind I must again congratulate the Home Affairs Committee on its even-handed approach to this inquiry. Seventy-six people submitted memorandums to the Committee—they included barristers, solicitors, the falsely accused, journalists, representatives of social services departments, police authority representatives and even Members of Parliament—and responded constructively to the inquiry's terms of reference.
    544
    I should remind Members that the cases that we are considering—historical sex abuse cases—arise from complainants' allegations of abuse in respect of incidents that took place up to 30 years ago. The complainants, who are now all adults, were cared for in care homes. The primary concern of members of the all-party group, endorsed by members of the Home Affairs Committee, is the way in which evidence from those individuals is obtained and recorded. Eight police authority inquiries have taken place throughout the UK in the past five years, involving—according to my own estimates—more than 20,000 complainants and probably in excess of 10,000 care workers and social workers, all of whom have been identified as suspects.
    I turn to the body of the report and my concerns about the adequacy of the Government's response. In paragraph 10 of the latter, the Government state:
    "The Committee's conclusions would appear…to have arisen from a combination of assumptions."
    One of those assumptions is that
    "Significant numbers of complainants are either serving prisoners or ex-offenders".
    The response continues:
    "The Government sees no evidence to support these assumptions".
    However, if they had so wished the Government could have used the resources at their disposal to substantiate those claims. Through the Association of Chief Police Officers, they could have asked the authorities engaged in these inquiries the following questions. How many of the complainants involved in these cases are known to the police? How many of them have been convicted? How many of them were interviewed in the highly inappropriate setting of a prison?
    Mr. Dawson: I commend my hon. Friend for her zealous work on this difficult issue, but does the fact that someone has a criminal record, has been in prison or done reprehensible things throughout their life therefore invalidate their having been abused as a child?
    Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: No, it certainly does not. However, had the Minister asked the police authorities to answer the questions to which I have just referred, she would have received answers that support those now at my disposal. The all-party group wrote to the solicitors representing men who claim that they are innocent of the crimes of which they are accused, and obtained the following information. In respect of the 32 prosecutions in question, there were 282 complainants. Some 92 per cent. of these people were known to the police, 84 per cent. had convictions, and at least 34 per cent. were interviewed in prison.
    I state categorically that the vast majority of complainants in these cases are fundamentally dishonest and dishonourable men, some of whom have killed, stolen, and perjured themselves in court. That does not mean that they have not been sexually abused, but their reputations and integrity must be a source of concern, and investigators must consider their evidence and motivations.
    Ms Munn: Would my hon. Friend accept that the process of being abused, and the fact that children have spent time in children's homes, enormously increases the

    545
    likelihood that they will be involved in offending behaviour—precisely because it creates such difficulties for how their lives will proceed? It may be valid to examine the issue in detail, but my hon. Friend's overall condemnation of their character is rather too strong.
    Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: What I am addressing is a point made by the Government in their response to the Home Affairs Committee. Recommendations were based on the assumption that a large number of the complainants in these cases had criminal convictions, which might throw doubt on the testimony that they gave in court. Had the Government sought to find the evidence, they would have found, as we have, that the vast number of complainants in these specific cases do indeed have criminal records. As I have already said, that does not mean that they are not also at the same time victims of sexual abuse. However, the way in which we approach and manage such people must be carefully considered, because they are predisposed to being dishonest and have committed grave crimes. We must not forget that the vast majority of those who assert that they are innocent of the crimes of which they have been accused, have been convicted precisely by the evidence given by such people—sometimes just their oral testimony, with nothing else to corroborate it—with no physical evidence at all.
    Mr. Dawson rose—
    Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: I will give way, but I am conscious that I must make progress.
    Mr. Dawson: I am grateful, as this is a really important point. Without going over all the ground again, would my hon. Friend accept that many people who have been through the care system and lived through abuse are now leading perfectly honest, decent and hard-working lives—they are, indeed, thoroughly decent members of our community?
    Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: I cannot argue with that: I do not have the statistics to demonstrate how many people coming out of care homes went on to live wholly honest and trustworthy lives. Unfortunately, only a very small number of such people are involved in these cases: 92 per cent. of those involved are known to the police, leaving only 8 per cent. not known to the police. I ask my hon. Friend to deduce from that what he will.
    Everything must be done to assess the way in which the victim is contacted and interviewed to ensure that the interview in process is not compromised either by the complainant or the police. I ask the Minister to ask the police authorities to confirm how many interviews with complainants were conducted in prison, and how often the police visited the same individuals? I know the answers to those questions, but does the Minister?
    In response to the Home Affairs Committee request for all interviews and interactions to be at least tape-recorded or video-recorded, I was disappointed to find that the Government said that "only some" should be, which is not good enough. The men, 92 per cent. of whom are known to the police, must be interviewed on tape, because their oral testimony—and perhaps only that testimony—could lead to a man being convicted for the rest of his life. Let us not forget the vast majority of
    546
    the accused in these cases are retired men who have given their working lives to caring for vulnerable children whom their families have, for a variety of reasons, rejected.
    Many of the people writing to the all-party group assert that it is the dialogue between the police and the witness that leads to miscarriages of justice: that it is the police who lead and guide complainants to making complaints. I do not know whether there is any truth in those accusations, because there is no tape or video-recording of the crucial interviews that took place between the police and the complainants. There is no faithful report of what went on or what was said between them. What I do know is that successful prosecutions lead to big compensation pay-outs for individuals who appear in court or join class actions. The Minister could ask for details of those compensation pay-outs, but we have already heard that a Manchester company is dealing with 800 applications for compensation, which almost equates to the number of complainants who have risen in response to the trawling techniques employed by police authorities in the north-west.
    I was also disappointed to note what was said in paragraph 13 of the Government reply:
    "The Government recognises that this is an area where solid facts can be difficult to identify, however we feel that the weight given by the Committee to the views of those who believe in the existence of miscarriages of justice, including those who claim to be the victims themselves of such cases, is disproportionate. The consideration for the views of abuse survivors, such as those represented in the submission to the Committee from Fire In Ice, and whom we can reasonably assume lack motive to fabricate their claims, point towards a wholly different view of these issues. The Government feels that the consideration of this issue must be balanced and must rely as far as possible on established facts."
    That is a crucial paragraph. I say immediately that I wholly endorse the Government's view that consideration of the issue must be balanced and rely on established facts. So far as I am aware, nobody who gave evidence to the Committee, which was critical of police trawling, ever suggested for a moment that sexual abuse in care homes was not a real and serious problem. Nor did the committee itself make such a suggestion at any point in its report. On the contrary, the report begins by stressing that
    "child abuse is one of the most dreadful crimes and the suffering of victims, even years after the offence has taken place, is difficult to imagine".
    Of course the views of genuine victims should be considered, but in drawing attention to the submission made by the organisation, Fire in Ice, the Government are, I submit, treading on very dangerous ground indeed.
    May I draw the attention of the House to the fact that Fire in Ice made a written submission to the Committee, in which it described itself as
    "a Merseyside based self-help project run by and for men who have experienced child abuse, especially those who suffered in childcare institutions"?
    The project co-ordinator of Fire in Ice, Matthew Byrne, also gave oral evidence to the Committee. I am certainly not suggesting for one moment that those who run Fire in Ice—and Matthew Byrne, in particular—are anything other than sincere in describing their organisation in those terms. They clearly believe that

    547
    they are representing those who have genuinely been abused while in care. No doubt in some cases they are quite correct in this belief, but if the Government really believe what they profess—that debate about these matters
    "must rely as far as possible on established facts"—
    I must point out that the evidence submitted by the members of Fire in Ice does not pass the test that the Government have, quite rightly, set for themselves.
    The claims made by, or on behalf of, a series of members referred to in Fire in Ice's written submission are not "established facts". They are allegations. They are, furthermore, allegations of sexual abuse against care workers made by individuals who are identified only by numbers and who are referred to as "Survivor 1", "Survivor 2" and so forth. Even the men against whom the allegations are made are not identified by name. For that reason, the claims made in the written evidence submitted by Fire in Ice are difficult or impossible to verify.
    The Government have said in their reply that they can "reasonably assume" that the members of Fire in Ice "lack motive" to fabricate allegations, but I find it very odd indeed that, in the very same breath as calling for reliance on "established facts", the Government should base one of their own arguments on something that, by their own account, is nothing more than an assumption. The Government claim that the assumption is reasonable, but we seem to encounter here, in the Government's own reply, the very habit of mind that is so dangerous in these investigations. Assuming that horrific allegations of sexual abuse must be true when there is no evidence at all to support them is not, in fact, a reasonable position at all. Nor is it a balanced view. To me, it is a highly dangerous view.
    If the Government had taken the trouble to investigate a little further what sort of organisation Fire in Ice actually is, and what sort of literature it recommends to its members, the need for caution would have—or at least should have—rapidly become apparent. The research involved is not difficult and the initial stages could have been completed in a matter of minutes. Fire in Ice does not make a secret of its underlying philosophy, or the guiding lights by which it steers. Indeed, it advertises them on websites. Its website includes a section on useful literature, in which it recommends several books. One of those books is "The Courage to Heal" by Ellen Bass and Laura Davis. This book was originally written for women and is well known. It is sometimes described as the handbook, or even the bible, of the recovered memory movement. Many responsible psychiatrists arid therapists regard it as one of the most dangerous self-help books ever written. Its authors encourage the readers to search their memories for dark and shameful episodes of sexual abuse, which, they are told, may have been completely hidden by repression. Bass and Davis write:
    "If you think you were abused, and your life shows the symptoms, then you were."
    With the help of "The Courage to Heal", which has now sold millions of copies in north America alone, many hundreds of thousands of women have recovered what
    548
    they describe as memories of being raped or sexually abused repeatedly for long periods during their childhood.
    Reputable psychologists and psychiatrists in Britain, America and elsewhere have, again and again, reached the conclusion that in most, if not all, cases, those recovered memories are false. Others have opposed this view. This is not the time and place to engage in that particular debate, but it is the time and the place to draw attention to the fact that such a debate has been raging now for some 20 years and that the existence of false memories has been proved beyond all doubt. It is the time and place to suggest to the Government that some caution is required before they leap to the conclusion that an organisation that clearly believes in the phenomenon of recovered memory should be treated as a trusted and reliable source.
    Mr. Dawson: Will my hon. Friend give way?
    Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: I have been generous so far and I am afraid that I cannot give way now. I would simply add here the observation that Fire in Ice recommends not only "The Courage to Heal", but its male equivalent, "Victims No Longer" by Mike Lew. So far as Fire in Ice is concerned, the issue of recovered memory is one warning bell whose insistent tolling the Government should have heard but did not.
    There is a second warning bell in the evidence actually submitted to the Committee by Fire in Ice, which the Government has either not heard or not attended to. In its written submission, Fire in Ice described a man they called "Survivor 8" in the following terms:
    "Survivor 8 is a 28-year-old man who was abused by his football coach in the 1980s. Operation Care found his name by trawling…While he was in prison he was asked to give evidence against his abuser, he agreed but when the other inmates found out that the accused man was a famous local player/coach they bullied him until he withdrew the allegation."
    I hope that I do not need to labour the point that the allegation that is made in that evidence is of the gravest possible kind. It is an allegation which has never been tested and which remains utterly unsubstantiated. It is an allegation made by an anonymous accuser, but it is made against a former care worker who, in this case at least, appears to be all too identifiable. So far as I am aware, the only famous footballer and coach investigated by Operation Care was David Jones, formerly the manager of Southampton and now, of course, the manager of Wolverhampton Wanderers.
    Hon. Members will perhaps recall that the trial of David Jones, surrounded as it was by intense media interest, collapsed almost before it had begun in December 2000. It is perhaps worth repeating the words that were spoken by Judge David Clarke to Mr. Jones at the time of his acquittal:
    "David Jones, not guilty verdicts have been entered in respect of all charges against you. I would just like to say this means you leave this court as you entered it—an innocent man."
    One might have expected that the Government, in their reply to the Home Affairs Committee, would have shown respect and immense sensitivity to a man in the position of David Jones. Instead they have implicitly and—it would appear—unthinkingly endorsed the veracity of a wholly unsubstantiated allegation of sexual abuse that appears to refer to him. More importantly

    549
    still, without the benefit of any investigation or any evidence, the Government have endorsed the credibility of the organisation that brings forward that allegation. In doing so, I submit that the Government have made a very serious error of judgment.
    In case those two warning bells are not loud enough to indicate to hon. Members how dangerous a course the Government are now steering, I want to sound a third warning bell about the organisation in which the Government have chosen to repose their trust. Before I do so, I will say once again that I do not seek for one moment to question the sincerity of those who run Fire in Ice. I do not doubt that those who lead that organisation generally believe in the truthfulness of the allegations that they bring forward. The problem is simply that some of those involved with the organisation have made allegations that cannot be true.
    I rely on a little research of the kind that could easily have been conducted by the Home Office before the Government finalised their reply. The starting point of the research is the recognition that Fire in Ice is not a charity. It is, in fact, a limited company. As such, it has a number of directors whose names, addresses and dates of birth are, of necessity, lodged with Companies House. One of the directors of Fire in Ice is a man whose name is given as David Harold Walsh, and whose date of birth is given as 11 August 1967. I have available for the Minister a statement given to the police in 1994 by David Harold Walsh.
    In November 1994, the police were investigating possible abuse at a home called Greystone Heath in Cheshire where David Walsh had been in residence some twelve years previously. One of their suspects was Dennis Grain, who was in fact an abuser and would eventually plead guilty to a number of counts of sexual abuse. When the police, who were engaged in a trawling operation and were seeking more allegations of abuse, came to see David Walsh, they were equipped with a photograph album. That album contained photographs of a number of former members of staff. From it, Walsh picked out a photograph of Dennis Grain. He went on to make an allegation of indecent assault against Grain, saying that this "big man"—Grain weighed, I believe, some 15 stone—had pinned him to the wall one day and started to play with his penis. That had happened, Walsh said, on two further occasions.
    A week later, David Walsh made another statement to the police. He said that he had been thinking about what had happened and wished to say that, although his first statement was true, there were some details he had left out because they were embarrassing. He now wished to add those details. He went on to make an allegation of attempted buggery and also alleged that Grain had attempted to force him to engage in oral sex.
    A month later, however, the Cheshire police visited Walsh again. By this time it would appear that they had consulted their records. What those clearly showed was that David Walsh had first entered Greystone Heath on 11 February 1982. Dennis Grain, however, had left on 31 May 1980, almost two years before Walsh had arrived. Far from being abused by Grain, Walsh had never even met him.
    David Walsh now made a third statement, saying that he had been upset and confused when he had made his first statement. He later went on to make a fourth
    550
    statement in which he maintained that the abuse he had described had indeed happened, even though he had been mistaken about Grain. The person he had described in his first statement as "a big man", whose "heavy body" he had referred to in his second statement and who was "well built" according to his third statement, was now described, in his fourth and final statement, as having been of "medium to slim build".
    Let me say immediately that I do not know whether David Walsh was, when he first made his allegation against Dennis Grain, deliberately and consciously inventing an allegation that he knew to be false. What I do know, and what the Cheshire police eventually discovered, was that David Walsh made allegations that were in fact false. He may now believe sincerely that he was sexually abused at Greystone Heath by some person unknown. Once again, I stress that it is not the sincerity of the members—or, in this case, one of the directors—of Fire in Ice that I am seeking to question. It is their accuracy and reliability.
    I respectfully suggest that if the Government, before compiling and publishing their reply to the Home Affairs Committee report, had conducted a little elementary research, they would not have ended up in the very difficult position they are now in.
    Mr. Prosser: I pay tribute to the excellent work that my hon. Friend has done. She has become a veritable expert in this difficult subject. The evidence that she has given this afternoon has driven a coach and horses through nearly all the rebuttals and refusals that the Government have provided to the Committee. Does she agree that when one compares the weight of evidence that the Home Affairs Committee received, and the additional evidence that she has brought to us this afternoon, with the lukewarm, thin and unsubstantiated rebuttals of the Government, the Home Office appears complacent in saying that everything is okay on this issue?
    Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: Yes, I am afraid that I have come to that conclusion.
    I am conscious that other hon. Members want to speak, so I shall bring my remarks to a close. However, I am desperately concerned that the work and views of the Home Affairs Committee have been rejected more or less completely by the Home Office. At the very least, I should have expected all the evidence, from both complainants and those accused, to have been tape-recorded. We must assume that all the people making the accusations have been abused. Many of them are interviewed in prison. In many cases they are interviewed repeatedly—up to 18 times—in order to get a statement that passes muster with the Crown Prosecution Service. That is totally unacceptable.
    I cannot imagine anything worse, or more guaranteed to produce severe and adverse responses to episodes, than repeated interviewing. People who are believed to have been sexually abused must be treated like rape victims. Those who are in prison must not be treated like prisoners. We must afford them the respect that we have worked hard to gain for rape victims. The people involved must be taken out of the prison context and brought to rape suites, where their testimony can be

    551
    recorded. They must be adequately supported as they come to terms with the trauma that may become evident after they have made their declarations.
    Ms Munn: Will my hon. Friend give way?
    Mrs. Curtis-Thomas: No, I must continue.
    At the very least, I would have hoped that the Home Office would recognise that many of the people involved are vulnerable, and that for all sorts of reasons they may well respond to what the police want them to say. More importantly, however, the Home Office should recognise that those people may genuinely have suffered the most appalling abuse. As such, they should be afforded the protection that is afforded to others.
    The Home Office has failed to do that. It has failed to protect the accused, and it is guilty of failing to protect victims. Prisoners who are locked in prison are the most vulnerable of victims. I object to the Home Office's response. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will consider the matter. More than any other cases, cases of sexual abuse must be conducted and reviewed under a regime of tape recording. That is vital for everyone involved.
    The allegations that I have made today require substantial proof that they are true. I want to be able to tell the House that I know what went on because tape-recorded evidence exists to prove it. That is what people who are accused of these acts want, and I am sure that that is what most victims want.
    3.23 pm
    Mr. Edward Garnier: Because of the lack of time, I will not engage in a trawl. However, I will engage in a brief bit of dip sampling.
    Before I do so, I want to congratulate the hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) on her speech. I am sorry that she did not have more time to tell us a little more about her concerns, as I know that she has pursued the matter with great passion and dedication. She has done so with no expectation or hope of political reward. It is unusual for a modern Member of Parliament to take up an issue that will do her precisely no good at all, although the hon. Lady's work has enhanced her reputation in the House, and outside it.
    I should also like to congratulate the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), who, as the former Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee, persuaded that Committee to take up the inquiry last year. He is a doughty fighter on behalf of people who have suffered miscarriages of justice. I am delighted that the hon. Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) was able to present, in a thoroughly dispassionate and reasonable way, the conclusions of the Committee of which he is the acting Chairman.
    David Winnick: I am the temporary Chairman.
    Mr. Garnier: The modern parlance used by the Prime Minister is "during the transitional period".
    552
    I promised to be brief and to sample dip, so I shall make only a few comments. First, like my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), I want to begin by looking at paragraph 10 of the Government's response to the report. I do not blame the Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing, and Community Safety, who is new to her post and was not responsible for the political oversight of the report, but paragraph 10 states:
    "The Committee's conclusions would appear partly to have arisen from a combination of assumptions",
    and then it goes on to list them. The paragraph begins by stating that the Government
    "respects the views of the Committee, but does not share its belief in the existence of large numbers of miscarriages of justice."
    That is a regrettable way to introduce a report. It tells us that the Government are wavering between being somewhat lofty and complacent, and being simply dismissive of the Committee's work.
    I do not want to be entirely controversial all of the time. For example, I agree with the Government's response to recommendation 13, which appears in paragraph 62. The Government state that they see no reason to interfere with the ability of the CPS to prosecute ancient cases if the evidence exists. I see no need to get special permission from the Director of Public Prosecutions or the Attorney-General to pursue ancient cases, if the evidence is there.
    However, I take issue with paragraph 66, which responds to recommendation 15 in connection with the anonymity of people charged with allegations of the sexual abuse of children. There are perfectly respectable arguments both ways when it comes to the anonymising or otherwise of defendants in such cases, but there is no justice to be found in the Government's answer that they
    "will continue to listen to the arguments of those who feel strongly on the matter."
    That means nothing. A Government who have got their head around the matter properly ought to make their meaning rather clearer.
    Mr. Mark Francois: On a directly related matter, I had a good friend who was a teacher. He suffered allegations similar to those being discussed today. It took two years for the matter to go to the Crown Court, where the jury threw the case out in less than 30 minutes. However, my friend's life was ruined for two years. He suffered a great deal of harassment by the local press, and he was so traumatised that he was unable to return to the classroom afterwards. We lost a very good teacher as a result. Does my hon. and learned Friend believe that a case can be made for anonymity in some of these cases, so that we do not lose good public servants?
    Mr. Garnier: Yes, I think that there is a case for anonymity, but the Government's response does not deal with the matter adequately. Indeed, I am taking part in this debate, and I am following the hon. Member for Crosby in dealing with the issue, because I, too, had a constituency case similar to that described by my hon. Friend. In that case, a man and his female partner—they live together as husband and wife, although I do not think that they are married—were both accused of vile and disgusting acts by people who were once, years before, in their charge. They were the victims, if I may say so, of a trawl.

    553
    Despite what the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) says, the couple in the case that I have described were not victims of the same type as people involved in the children's homes cases, but they were victims none the less. Perhaps I shall have occasion to speak up for people who suffered genuine sexual abuse in children's homes, but that is not what I am talking about today. Today, I am talking about the other side of the coin—wholly innocent people who are the victims of police trawling. Such people are subjected to appalling social and employment consequences, as happened in the case cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois).
    The two people in my constituency were never brought to court, because the police withdrew the case about 18 months to two years after the couple were originally suspended from work, brought in for interview and bunged into a police cell. Their lives are now effectively ruined. I shall not dwell on their case, because I dealt with it in the Westminster Hall Adjournment debate initiated by the hon. Member for Crosby.
    Mr. Dawson: I accept all that the hon. and learned Gentleman says about miscarriages of justice: no one wants them to happen. None the less, are there not dangers in trying to protect the rights of people who are accused of child abuse in that one might make it more difficult for victims to come forward and tell what they know about that most heinous of crimes?
    Mr. Garnier: I am not sure that we are in an either/or set of circumstances. We need to protect the rights of those who are abused and those accused of abusing. Even those who are guilty of abusing children, even if they have been convicted of heinous crimes, have rights. There is no argument between us on that. Miscarriages of justice occur not only in cases to do with the sexual abuse of children in homes. When an innocent man is convicted, the miscarriage is just as great as it is when a guilty man is acquitted, but the consequences for the individual may be hugely different.
    I want to touch on one or two recommendations made by the Committee and responded to by the Government. I can broadly agree with what the Government say in response to recommendations 1 and 2 on page 7 of the report. However, we must ensure that the police exercise greater care and forethought before they set upon a collection of individuals whom they believe—I do not think that the police go into these matters dishonestly—may have committed the most appalling crimes against children, either recently or, more dangerously, some little while ago.
    The problem that the police have faced, certainly in my county of Leicestershire, is that they are terribly under-resourced. On the constituency matter to which I referred a moment ago, one police superintendent, with only a sergeant and a detective constable to help him, had to trawl—I use the word deliberately—through documents that had been distributed between Leicester city social services and Leicestershire county council social services following the fairly recent split in the local government set-up. He had no assistance from either social services department in locating documents. One can imagine the difficulty that that small team of police officers had. Leicestershire constabulary was under
    554
    pressure to achieve a result, not least because Leicestershire had suffered the terrible trauma of the Beck case, which will be well known to all who have followed social services policy over the past 15 years.
    I am not for one moment suggesting that the superintendent, whom I have met and for whom I have huge respect, deliberately set out to manufacture or to cut corners in order to provide evidence that would get his group of accused people to trial and conviction. That simply is not how he was thinking. He was, however, under huge pressure to achieve something, and as a consequence of the absence of manpower and resources—and assistance from civilian authorities that ought to have helped him better—a wholly unsatisfactory inquiry was put in train, which damaged a huge number of people's lives. Those lives are still being damaged.
    Ms Munn: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman accept that there are reasons other than those of the police for finding out whether there may have been more victims of an alleged abuser? In my experience of being involved in investigations of the type referred to, my social services department felt that it had a duty to former residents to check whether they had suffered abuse, not just in the interests of criminal prosecution but because those people would be entitled to compensation, help and support.
    Mr. Garnier: As was the case with the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), I do not disagree for one moment with what the hon. Lady has said. There is no dispute between us. What the police must be careful about, however, is that when they interview alleged victims, they are aware that they are talking to damaged people. The mere fact that those people have been in children's homes leads me to believe that they must feel rejected. They have been abandoned by their parents. They may not even know their father. They have been abandoned from all the normal family circumstances and environments that many of us take for granted. They have, as it were, been dumped in public sector oubliettes. I am exaggerating, and I do so in order to truncate the range of words I want to use.
    Imagine what it would be like to be a child of 11, 12, 13 or 14 in a children's home. There is not much going for that child, in spite of the fact that those who run the homes do their best to provide the nearest thing to normal family life. Such children are ripe, it may be said, to the temptations and difficulties of the criminal world. Often, I am afraid to say, children from residential homes go into crime. Many of those who appear in front of me as adults when I sit as a Crown court recorder have been brought up in children's homes. I want to make it clear that I am not criticising those who run children's homes, but that is a fact of life.
    When those people go to prison or to young offenders' institutions, they are desperate for approval, love and some form of attention. The next source of attention may well be a policeman coming in to ask for a statement about the terrible things that happened to them in the children's home 10 years ago. There is a danger that auto-suggestive people will give statements that they think are required of them, rather than the unvarnished truth. That is another fact of life, and it leads me to exercise some caution about the trawling

    555
    system. The Select Committee was entirely right to draw that to our attention, and to that of the Government. I do not care whether the Committee found it convenient or otherwise to use the word "trawling"; it happens accurately to describe the exercise that the police so often, for reasons good or bad, undertake.
    During last year's Adjournment debate in Westminster Hall, I urged the then Minister to look carefully and vigorously into videoing interviews. "Resources, resources, resources" is always the cry, although the Minister, at least on that occasion, did not say that the time was not right. The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 has been in place for nearly 20 years, and it is pretty well standard practice for interviews of defendants to be taped. It cannot be beyond the wit of man or Government to push that forward with rather greater vigour.
    I shall pause now so that others may speak. I urge the Government to listen carefully to the Committee and to what is said in this debate. I urge them not to brush the matter under the carpet as though it were some inconvenient and unfashionable item while they get on with destroying the constitution.
    3.38 pm
    Mr. Marsha Singh: In the couple of remaining minutes I should like to put on record my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), without whose work the report might not have been possible, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick), who so admirably stepped into the breach.
    This is one of the most difficult reports that I have been involved in because of the judgment that we had to make between the interests of children and the interests of the accused. No one on the Committee was left in any doubt that miscarriages of justice took place precisely because of the way in which investigations were carried out. It seemed that following an allegation the police were not seeking to substantiate it or disprove it, but were looking for another allegation to confirm that something had happened. That is where the miscarriages of justice occurred. The Government should carefully consider our recommendations, which would stop the trawling and would safeguard the rights of victims, those making the allegations and the accused.
    Finally, will the Government look again at anonymity, because lives, families, jobs, careers and reputations are being destroyed on the basis of false allegations? No one deserves that.
    3.40 pm
    Mr. Dominic Grieve: This has been a most useful debate. I well recollect the debate that we had last year in Westminster Hall, in which the hon. Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) participated and which raised many of the same issues. It is greatly to her credit that she has pursued this extremely unpopular topic with such determination. I found it illuminating to read the report of the Select Committee on Home Affairs and see the extent to which it took into account the points that she has been raising over and over again—and indeed attracting a lot of opprobrium for
    556
    doing so—and came up with conclusions that were often similar to those that she had earlier been reporting as subjects of anxiety.
    Clearly, there is an enormous problem in relation to such cases, first, because there is immense public interest in pursuing and punishing those who perpetrate child abuse, especially in view of the fact that the children have been in the care, often, of care homes and local authorities. It is an important public policy issue. It is also the case, however, that such cases highlight the problem one experiences when trying to ensure justice for victims. The case may be decades old and the evidence, whether documentary or recollections, may have completely disappeared.
    In recent years, I have noticed the view increasingly being taken by those in authority—whether the police, the Crown Prosecution Service or to some extent the Government have been driving the process—that the evidential difficulties that may exist should not be a deterrent to bringing proceedings in the first place, when an investigation is carried out. That then places a great burden on those who are carrying out such inquiries to be alive to the problems that are likely to occur and can lead to the miscarriages of justice and anxieties expressed by the hon. Lady and the Select Committee. I shall return to that theme in my closing remarks, because it has long-term problems for us.
    The Government's response to the report is disappointing. The disappointment springs not from the answers to particular recommendations, but from the general tone. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) intervened earlier and raised a pertinent point, which is that in their reply the Government allege in paragraph 10—they are putting words into the Committee's mouth—that
    "'False allegations' are assumed to have occurred in a whole range of circumstances, from acquittals and cases that do not proceed to occasions when their existence is claimed by either those who claim to have made them or their associates. Rarely is there clear substantiation that these allegations have indeed been deceptions."
    That statement was an extraordinary way to put the issue. The point should be whether we are satisfied that there is clear substantiation that the allegations are true. The Government give the impression that they see the problem only in terms of its being a reversal of the burden of proof, and that as long as there is no substantiation that the allegations were deceptions, there is nothing for us to worry about. However, that is not the foundation of the principle of justice in this country.
    Angela Watkinson: In cases of past child abuse, is it ever possible to reach a decision that is beyond reasonable doubt?
    Mr. Grieve: I am sure that there could be circumstances in which that was possible. Our established rules and principles of admissibility of evidence and our conduct of trials ought, in my experience, to be sufficiently robust to ensure that justice can be done, provided that it is accompanied by high standards in the investigative processes carried out by the police, to ensure that they do not unwittingly, or when carried away by their understandable desire to see justice done, succeed in tainting the evidence by their investigative methods.

    557
    Trawling is the classic case where such a problem may emerge.
    David Winnick: As regards the intervention of the hon. Member for Upminster (Angela Watkinson), I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there can be justified convictions in such historical cases. However, as he knows, we recommended that, where the alleged offence was committed more than 10 years before the allegation was made, proceedings should continue only with the court's permission. We thought that a necessary and useful safeguard.
    Mr. Grieve: The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting question. My response on that specific recommendation is that, oddly enough, I slightly support the Government's position. If someone makes an allegation that is more than 10 years after the event, I would expect that the person acting for the defendant, faced with the difficulties of obtaining evidence, would automatically make an abuse of process application to the court. I should be staggered if that were not so. I should certainly do that if I were representing such a person. If there was evidence that abuse of process would arise because of those difficulties, I should expect the court to put it out.
    In fact, the hon. Gentleman and the Committee are suggesting that that procedure should be institutionalised. The procedure is not necessarily wrong, but on that issue, I question whether it would be necessary at all, as it would be a bizarre advocate who did not initiate it in any event.
    Mr. Garnier: May I reinforce my hon. Friend's point? Too often, the House gives the court powers that it has already. He has just given us an example of that.
    Mr. Grieve: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend.
    I do not like the tone of the Government's response on trawling. The business of "dip sampling" is just a euphemism. There is a legitimate reason for trawling. If a serious allegation is made by someone who appears to suggest that they were constantly abused in a care home and that they can remember other people who were also victims, nothing could be more legitimate than for the police to interview the other people who might have been victims and to make general inquiries, as they would in any investigation, of other children who had been in the care home about their experiences.
    However, when the investigation is carried out in the way described in paragraph 36 of the report, when South Wales police interviewed a young epileptic about his experiences in a home, the matter is a scandalous disgrace. Evidence obtained in such circumstances would be valueless for an objective prosecution and would be dangerous if misused, and not exposed, during any trial that took place.
    I have to tell the Minister that I think that trawling is the proper expression, and I am concerned that proper systems should be in place to ensure that the inquiry is properly conducted. If anything needs to be done in this area, that is it—I shall come to one or two others, but that is the first priority. I am pleased to note that, although the Government minimise all those problems,
    558
    they seem to accept that the system could be improved. There has been a classic Government response to the paper. They say, "Yes, we could improve things, but there is really nothing to worry about." I happen to disagree; there is a lot to worry about and a lot needs improvement.
    I wish to say briefly that I agree with the Government that 79 per cent. of cases were rejected by the Crown Prosecution Service. I have to tell the Minister and the hon. Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) that that shows that the CPS is carrying out proper scrutiny, but that is not to say that no miscarriage of justice will occur. However, I am reassured by the fact that the number of rejected cases is so much higher than ordinarily, because that is a reflection of the problematic nature of bringing such prosecutions.
    Mr. Dawson: I seek the hon. Gentleman's advice. The CPS has turned down a lot of applications to go to trial. Presumably, in such cases, someone may well have been accused, but the CPS is simply considering whether the case would stand up in court.
    Mr. Grieve: The hon. Gentleman makes a very telling intervention that goes to the nub of the problem, and in fairness, given the time available, I cannot get away from that.
    People often say, "We want the truth to come out in court. We must make a desperate inquiry to find the truth." However, we sometimes have to accept that we will never find the truth. One of this country's principles of criminal justice is not that we will find the truth at the end of the process, but that we will convict people when the courts can be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that they have committed an offence, so it is explicit and implicit that people will escape prosecution or be acquitted even though they have committed an offence, because the high standard that we set ourselves cannot be met. I approve of that principle, and any right-thinking person applying his or her mind to the dangers of miscarriages of justice must also approve of it. Again, I will return to that.
    Mr. Dawson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Grieve: I cannot give way—I must get finished.
    I want to cover two other specific matters before I return to the general. On extending anonymity to the accused, I accept that such cases cannot be separated from ordinary rape cases, but we return to the nub issue that, in the past, Parliament has considered it right to grant anonymity to the accused in certain sex offences. I am bound to say that that issue requires us to give it very careful consideration, because wrecking the lives of people who are accused and subsequently acquitted—which we are perpetrating in such cases—ought to give Parliament grave cause for concern. If things can be done in a way that does not prevent the proper administration of justice, there are powerful reasons to consider granting anonymity, not just in such cases, but in other similar ones.
    The other thing is the working relationship between personal injury solicitors and the police. I entirely endorse the point that, with no win, no fee agreements—we warned about this when they were introduced—and

    559
    given the changes in the way in which funding is taking place for cases of negligence against, for example, local authorities where someone has been abused in care, there must be a risk of solicitors having an interest in the conclusion of the criminal proceedings that, unfortunately, influences their professional judgments. When, on top of that, police officers are full of zeal to see "justice" being done, there is a risk at that stage that people stop seeing the wood for the trees and start taking decisions that are contrary to the interests of justice.
    In conclusion—I am mindful that the Minister and the hon. Member for Walsall, North will want to respond—I return to a much more general point that worries me enormously. The report includes a reference to similar fact evidence and to what constitutes good evidence in securing a person's conviction. Indeed, that is highly pertinent, because the Criminal Justice Bill, to which the report refers, once again shifts the goalposts to facilitate the conviction of accused people. That is a deliberate policy adopted by the Government in the belief that courts are acquitting too many people who are guilty of offences. The problem is that while it is undoubtedly the case that these shifts in similar fact evidence, and the admissibility of previous convictions under the Criminal Justice Bill, will almost certainly see more guilty people being convicted, it is also absolutely certain that there will be more miscarriages of justice and innocent people will be wrongly convicted. Human justice is fallible, and such shifts cannot be carried out without the attendant consequences.
    Picking up on my reply to the intervention of the hon. Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), Parliament faces a great problem: the public understandably want criminals convicted, which is very important, and people who commit horrible offences such as child abuse come in for great public opprobrium, which is understandable. There is a great momentum to want to see punishment meted out and justice done. We must always have it in mind, however, that miscarriages of justice happen, have happened, and, I am afraid, will continue to happen. We should be careful about bending traditional rules that have served us well in this country to achieve a result when the side effects may be as, if not more, reprehensible in terms of bringing the system of justice into disrepute. With that thought—
    Mr. Dawson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Grieve: I apologise, but I cannot take the hon. Gentleman's intervention, as I want to hear the Minister. I look forward to her response on this extremely difficult subject.
    3.57 pm
    The Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing, and Community Safety (Ms Hazel Blears): First, I want to place on record my thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin). As various Members have said, it was a brave decision to pursue this inquiry in the Home Affairs Committee, and today's debate has been ably presented by my hon.
    560
    Friend the Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick), acting as transitional Chairman of that Committee.
    I want to deal with as many of the specific matters raised by hon. Members as possible. The overwhelming flavour of all the contributions, however, has been to show how difficult it is to get the balance right in this area. It involves a whole range of conflicting and competing interests of victims, witnesses and prosecutors, as well as some of the public policy issues raised by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) at the end of his contribution. This is one area in which the jigsaw of different interests has thrown up some difficult issues of judgment. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Singh) said that this was one of the most difficult matters with which he had had to deal because it was all about judgment.
    It is entirely right that this difficult area of criminal investigation should be subject to intensive scrutiny by the public, the media and the Committee. We do not want to shy away from it. These cases represent some of the most challenging investigations for police forces, as they involve terrible crimes against vulnerable children, and the Committee's report was balanced in terms of the interests of various parties. We should not forget, however, that some of these children have suffered enormous distress and damage to their lives as a result of these events.
    The added element of uncertainty and complexity created by the passage of an often considerable period of time makes the job of investigation harder. That is why it is even more important that the whole chain of evidence gathering has integrity and is as robust and rigorous as possible. In a reciprocal way, the longer ago that such events took place, the more rigorous the investigation process must be. I entirely acknowledge that the situation adds to difficulties faced by defendants or people under investigation, and we heard several passionate and committed contributions about the position of defendants. We must be clear about safeguards all round to ensure that justice is denied neither to complainants nor those who are investigated. I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North that justice must be done.
    Bob Russell: The hon. Lady says that justice must be done, so even if the Home Office is right that there is no evidence that many miscarriages of justice have occurred, will she accept that at least some miscarriages of justice have occurred? Does she acknowledge that a number of innocent men are in jail for serious crimes that they did not commit?
    Ms Blears: Any single miscarriage of justice is an absolute tragedy for the people involved, and I take the point made by the hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier). We are not saying that we can sweep aside miscarriages of justice just because they are few in number. Every single miscarriage of justice in this country is a tragedy for the person involved, his or her family and, indeed, the justice system, because miscarriages of justice reflect badly on it. Individual cases have been referred to the Criminal Cases Review

    561
    Commission and individual decisions will be made on such cases after consideration of new evidence and of how the cases were dealt with in ourt.
    Mr. Dawson: Will my hon. Friend give way?
    Ms Blears: I shall, but I want to get on to deal with specific matters that hon. Members raised.
    Mr. Dawson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and I congratulate her on her new position. I commend the excellent and balanced Government response to a good report by the Select Committee. Will she attend to the needs of victims who will not have their cases heard in court for a variety of reasons? Will she do further work with victims' organisations to address their expressed need for an apology, a recording system and the development of compensation schemes and victim support?
    Ms Blears: My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) has an excellent personal record of commitment to the issue and extensive personal experience, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn). They will know that one of the main thrusts behind our changes to the criminal justice system is the need to ensure that victims and witnesses are at the heart of the system and that it serves the needs of such people better in the future. I am happy to consider all the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre.
    I turn to the use of dip sampling or trawling—various terms were used—in investigations. The fishing analogies seem to be increasing because we have heard about fishing expeditions and now trawling. I wait with interest to hear what kind of term will be used next, although I shall not make a huge issue of terminology. I am pleased that the Select Committee acknowledges that there is a need to conduct wide-ranging investigations. It does not want dip sampling to be prohibited but wants robust safeguards to be built in the process.
    Hon. Members will know that the "Senior Investigating Officers Handbook for the Investigation of Historic Institutional Child Abuse" was published in November 2001. It is a lengthy document that provides excellent examples of good practice and the way in which investigations should be managed. Section 5 outlines how initial contact with possible victims should be established. It suggests the use of a letter drop that does not name individuals and tries to establish open contact that would not be prejudicial to later proceedings. The handbook contains good work.
    I am happy to say today that further discussions should be held with the Association of Chief Police Officers to determine whether we can strengthen safeguards for such investigations to ensure absolutely that witnesses are not led and that allegations are not encouraged inappropriately.
    Mrs. Dean rose—
    Mr. Grieve rose—
    Ms Blears: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Beaconsfield.
    Mr. Grieve: Will the Minister reassure us on a further point? The Government's response to the report refers
    562
    to the fact that recent Court of Appeal judgments have resulted in convictions being set aside, but paragraph 21 says:
    "Clearly, the circumstances of these cases do not imply that other convictions are unsafe"—
    I appreciate that. If those cases that have been set aside arise out of trawling or dip sampling, will the Government acknowledge that that is cause for concern because there will be similarities between those cases and the practices that continue?
    Ms Blears: I assured the hon. Gentleman that we would look into that in more detail to see what can be strengthened. I do not want to speculate on what those cases might or might not tell us about any part of the chain of investigation.
    Mrs. Dean: Paragraph 33 of the Government's response to the Committee's recommendations is on audio and visual recording of witness statements. It says:
    "if it were explained to a witness that the recording may prevent cross-examination to the effect that, for example, the officer led the witness, they may themselves see the advantage in this approach."
    Will my hon. Friend look into that and consider further the Committee's recommendations on recording interviews at the initial stages? In itself, that could safeguard the evidence and protect witnesses.
    Ms Blears: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I was about to deal with that because it was raised by virtually every hon. Member. I am happy to undertake to reconsider the issue because such cases are sensitive and often have different characteristics. We have a well established system of recording interviews on video. That is part of our general criminal law approach. As my hon. Friend said, there may be good reasons why a recording would be in the interests of the person giving evidence. It might, perhaps, prevent them from being subject to further allegations about the veracity of their statement. There is always the issue of resources, however.
    The hon. and learned Member for Harborough made an important point on access to records. He will know that there was a minimal system of record keeping prior to the Children Act 1989. Fewer requirements were placed on people who ran care establishments to provide individual reports and records. The child abuse investigations inter-agency guidance has a section on the need to have access to records. Appendix E sets out a robust framework for record keeping as a result of the 1989 Act. It provides that records must be kept for 75 years after the birth of a child or for 15 years if a child dies before the age of 18. There are also strict legal requirements in the various sets of regulations passed after the 1989 Act to ensure that records are kept in future. In relation to past events, the records will sometimes be less than perfect and inadequate, but future record keeping has to be robust.
    Compensation is important. The guidance has a section on that. It provides that agencies have to establish a policy on how they are going to
    "deal with questions of potential financial compensation for victims, to clarify that members of the investigative team should not instigate any discussion of the issue and should avoid discussing it if it is raised by any victims or witnesses in the course of the investigation."

    563
    In addition, interviewing officers, who are on the front line, should be given good practical guidance on how to maintain that separation. It is important to emphasise that in the process. Another section in the guidance stresses the need to ensure that officers are not open to criticism for offering the prospect of compensation as a means of securing co-operation in an investigation. We are alive to the dangers, real or imputed, of how compensation could be used or construed. Again, the guidance is pretty robust on that.
    The senior investigating officers handbook, together with the guidance, give us a robust framework. I would not want to belittle the report's recommendations in any way. We agree with the Committee on a number of significant things, and we want to consider strengthening parts of the guidance and putting in place safeguards for everyone in the system. We are certainly not, as was suggested, complacent, lofty or dismissive of the report.
    A general point was made about the use in the criminal justice system of "similar fact" evidence. It would be a retrograde step to go back to having to use striking similar evidence. It is right that these matters are put before the court and the jury has the opportunity to weigh the evidence and reach a conclusion on that basis. It is therefore important that that information should be made available, and is not eliminated before the allegations can be ventilated in court. The Crown Prosecution Service has a crucial role to play in that process by sifting information. It already has two tests—whether or not a prosecution is likely to succeed, and whether or not it is in the public interest. Those well-established tests serve our criminal justice system extremely well indeed, and help us to ensure that justice is done.
    There are a range of other recommendations in the report, some of which we are happy to accept, although there are others with which we disagree. However, I should like to reassure every hon. Member who has participated in our debate, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas), who has done an immense amount of work and demonstrated commitment, tenacity and determination, that I take these matters extremely seriously. Having only assumed my post in the past few days, I will take the opportunity to look further and in depth at the recommendations to see whether we can make further progress. We must remember that we have a responsibility to ensure that justice is done for the defendants and, crucially, for the victims, who have suffered the effects of abuse, perhaps for decades, and may have had a blighted existence. That is the extremely serious matter that we are considering today.
    4.11 pm
    David Winnick: With the leave of the House, I should like to say a few words.
    I regret that, because of limited time, it was not possible for my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mrs. Dean) or the hon. Member for Colchester (Bob
    564
    Russell) to speak. They were both understandably anxious to do so, having played an active role in Committee, and their contributions would have been useful. I regret that my hon. Friends the Members for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson) and for Sheffield, Heeley (Ms Munn) were not able to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker. Had they done so, perhaps they would have expressed a different point of view. It is unfortunate that, given the lack of time, our debate is not quite as balanced as it might have been. However, it has been a good debate on a controversial subject, which it is only right and proper to discuss on the Floor of the House. That has been done in the absence of political controversy—it is rather surprising that I should say that, is it not?
    The hon. and learned Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) made a valid point about the recording of interviews, which we emphasise in our report and which was acknowledged, I am pleased to say, by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve). In one or two instances, he more or less agreed with the Government's written response, but he also showed a generous attitude to the Select Committee report.
    I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on her new appointment. I hope that I will not be misunderstood if I point out that her response was rather different from the Home Office's disappointing written response to our report and recommendations. I listened with great care when she said that there will be further discussions with police officers. I am pleased about that, and with her comments about compensation. I know that she made no promises of any kind, but she showed willingness to look at our recommendations. I would be grateful if she did so because, in her new position, she would not necessarily be confined to the Home Office response, which caused disappointment among members of the Select Committee.
    My hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) made a passionate speech. Indeed, as I told her, I cannot recall another occasion on which I heard such a passionate speech. She feels strongly about the subject—no one who listened to her today could doubt that. She has taken up a cause that would have been considered unpopular in the past, if not now, and she has done that with the utmost integrity. Not everyone would agree with her campaign, but she has campaigned consistently, regardless of popularity. I am pleased that there are hon. Members in all parties who are willing to accept such a role. My hon. Friend deserves full credit for her actions, even from those of us who cannot agree with all her views on the important subject.
    I am pleased that the debate has taken place. Our report took some time to compile and we believe that the Government should seriously consider most of our recommendations. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will do precisely that.
    Question deferred, pursuant to Standing Order No. 54(4) and (5) and Order [29 October 2002], until 6 pm.

Waste Management

  DEPARTMENT FOR ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS
  [Relevant documents: Eighth Report from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, Session 2002–03, on The Future of Waste Management, HC 385-I, and Fifth Report from the Environmental Audit Committee, Session 2002–03, on Waste—An Audit, HC 99-I; and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Annual Report for 2003, Cm 5919.]
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That further resources, not exceeding £1,386,358,000, be authorised for use for the year ending on 31st March 2004, and that a further sum, not exceeding £1,456,729,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund for the year ending on 31st March 2004 for expenditure by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.—[Joan Ryan.]
  4.16 pm
  Paddy Tipping: I begin by mentioning absent friends. The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), the Chairman of the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, is preparing for an important and joyous occasion. My right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher) is now—unfortunately—spending a little more time with his family. He would have been a persuasive respondent to the debate. In the past six years, he has been a strong advocate not only on waste issues but on general environment matters. Those who have seen him in the Chamber in the past couple of days know that he will not neglect those causes.
  I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment will reply to the debate. He has received a long awaited and well deserved promotion. Given his history, I know that he will take a keen political interest in waste.
  Mr. James Gray: I offer hon. Members apologies for the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam), the Chairman of the Environmental Audit Committee, who is unable to be present today.
  Paddy Tipping: I am sure that hon. Members understand the importance of waste management. Both the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and the Environmental Audit Committee noted that, in the past, reports have been written but no action has been taken on them. We have reached a point when delivery is vital. I note the Secretary of State's comments on that. I also take note of the waste summit and I am delighted about the strategy report, "Waste Not, Want Not".
  The important point is not that we have a problem but its scale. We must consider the policy instruments to resolve it and the timetable for doing that. Both Committees independently describe the Government's performance as "timid". We have not made sufficient progress.
  Yesterday, several hon. Members had the opportunity to talk to the permanent secretary at the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. He described the recycling and composting
  566
  targets as "very challenging". He is always a diplomat, and we could not draw him on whether the target of 17 per cent. would be met next year. I got the impression not only that the target was challenging but that the answer was probably no. We need to make progress and analyse the problems.
  In a sense, the problems can be categorised in two types, involving, first, a set of institutional issues and, secondly, a set of issues around policy instruments. I shall first deal with the institutional issues. It is clear that, although DEFRA is the lead Department on this matter, other Departments are involved. The Department of Trade and Industry deals with planning matters, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister encompasses local government, and the Treasury plays an important role—perhaps a prime role—in setting taxation. The Government are of the view that there clearly needs to be greater co-ordination between the Departments, and they are considering, through the Cabinet Office, whether that can be achieved. That ought to be a prime aim.
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth: I am aware that the Cabinet Office is reviewing the situation, but the hon. Gentleman might wish to know that, when the Secretary of State came before the Environmental Audit Committee on 12 February, she dismissed the idea of consolidating responsibility under one Department. The Government therefore seem to be in some disarray over this issue.
  Paddy Tipping: It may well be the case that the idea of consolidation has been dismissed. What the Select Committee is advocating, however, is better coordination. We shall need to look at what the Cabinet Office has to say. There are different models for achieving this, but what unites everyone is the fact that the present situation is simply not satisfactory, and that we ought to achieve something better. We also need to look to the Department, because one of the things that came out of our inquiry was that the division between policy and delivery—a lively issue in DEFRA at the moment, in the light of the Haskins review—is not at all clear. The Environment Agency has a regulatory facility—that is its prime task—but it is apparent that at times it is giving policy advice to DEFRA. I suspect that that reflects a lack of resources in the Department.
  A further institutional issue relates to EU legislation. Most of our environmental legislation now comes from the EU, and I have to say that, as a Government and as a Parliament, we do not handle this well. It is a straightforward fact that officials from the UK Government are well regarded in the EU, but our problem is that we do not get involved in discussing draft proposals at an early enough date. We certainly do not consider the consequence of regulations in enough detail. When it comes to our own House, I have to say that the way in which we examine European proposals is woefully inadequate. More legislation will come from the EU, and we must improve our act.
  It is important to recognise that the Department does not itself dispose of waste. It is reliant on other partners, both in the private sector and in local authorities in the public sector. We need a stronger, more effective partnership between those bodies. I think that it is fair to say that DEFRA has a long way to go in terms of

  567
  building relationships with the private sector. The Department has a particular genesis, in that it is used to working with the farming community, and its approach to partners needs to be examined in some detail. This is highlighted by the notion of a hazardous waste forum, which was long advocated by the private sector but resisted by the Department until the very end, when it eventually realised that it was necessary. There is real expertise in the private sector, and the Department needs to examine ways of handling that expertise, and of communicating far more thoroughly.
  Mr. Barry Sheerman: Is it not about time that the Government took seriously the concentration of highly skilled people in the Department who know about the waste sector? Is it not a problem that, wherever we look outside the private sector, we see people who do not stay in post long enough to learn how to handle the job, and who are then moved on? This is true of DEFRA and of the Environment Agency. Waste management has been the Cinderella for too long.
  Paddy Tipping: It is fair to say that the Department needs to consider the skills that it has, reinforce them and take people forward. We need to reflect on the fact that the Department is relatively youthful—it is two years old—but my hon. Friend is exactly right that we need to ensure that those of the right experience do particular jobs for a prolonged period. There are certainly issues here.
  The private sector will invest if there is a clear view of the future. Regulation needs to be clear before investment takes place. I remark on the fact that we are four years on from the landfill directive, and it is still not clear what material is to be counted as hazardous waste or whether the new standards will be introduced in 2004 or 2005. What signals does that send to the private sector, which wants to invest? Uncertainty will delay the much needed investment in this area.
  Local authorities, of course, are another partner. There are excellent examples of good practice in local authorities, but a shortcoming of the Government and of us all is that we do not focus on good practice enough, or promote and praise it. There is excellent practice about, but there is poor practice as well, so we must work hard to bring the worst up to the best.
  During our inquiry, we were told that, of course, money is not a problem as there is plenty available for local authority waste management functions. Local authorities have a structural problem too, as many areas such as shire counties have a collection authority and a disposal authority. We must look closely at joint planning and a more unified voice for the public sector. It is important that local authorities have the tools to deliver the tasks, but the Committee is not convinced that allocation through revenue support grant makes sufficient money available.
  One needs to consider the money that goes into local authorities for waste management processes through the environmental protection and cultural services block.
  568
  There is a lack of transparency here, and no one really knows how much money each local authority is being allocated.
  Norman Baker: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's analysis, but is not the situation even worse? Local authorities, perversely, are still given an incentive to landfill and no incentive to recycle compared with landfill. On too many occasions, it is still cheaper to dispose of unwanted material to landfill than to recycle, and there is no market for the recycled material. Beyond that, there is no incentive for local authorities to minimise waste. The hierarchy is not being enforced through economic measures from the Treasury in respect of local authorities.
  Paddy Tipping: I agree entirely. If there is time, I will develop those points, but the essential argument is that landfill is still cheap here compared with other countries. Until we can find fiscal mechanisms to resolve that, the problem will persist. A lot of local authority time is spent bidding for money—challenge fund and private finance initiative money, for example. I am not convinced that that is the best way, in the long term, to achieve effective solutions.
  Dr. Alan Whitehead: On environmental protection and cultural services, I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that the same budget heading provides local authorities with the ability to pay for landfill and the ability to invest in machinery, plant and activities that divert waste. Therefore, on the face of it, there appears to be a perverse incentive: the more local authorities pay for landfill, the less they have available for waste diversion. Did the Committee consider that point, and what view did it take?
  Paddy Tipping: The Committee took the simple view that investment is needed to make better progress and achieve better standards, but it will not come from that block fund, so local authorities are forced to bid for challenge funding and PFI schemes. Until we can give local authorities the tools that they need, problems will continue.
  Mr. Sheerman: I know that my hon. Friend sets great store by the knowledge and expertise of the private sector. Did the Committee receive any evidence specifying the amount of investment that the private sector considered necessary for the fulfilling of our obligations? According to the parliamentary sustainable waste group, between £3 billion and £5 billion is needed. That is wildly beyond any amount that the Government have mentioned.
  Paddy Tipping: That is true. Companies have told the Committee, "We are prepared to invest, but we want"—as they say nowadays—"a road map for the future. We want to know what game we are playing in. Until there is security, we are not prepared to make long-term investment decisions."
  If we are to carry out recycling and composting more effectively, we shall need different collection systems. Local authorities told the Committee that that would cost two or three times more than the black-bag collections that take place now. There is a wider issue here: are we prepared to pay for more effective waste

  569
  management and disposal? According to figures from France, the cost there is £105 per person as opposed to £60 in this country.
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman is making some compelling points, but given the huge divergence between the performance of local authorities here—some do relatively well, while some do abysmally—it must not be just a question of resources. It must also be a question of political will.
  Paddy Tipping: It is a question of many things, including resources. There is good practice around, and we need to use local authorities to develop it. I see nothing wrong with the notion of setting targets and measuring against them. If we are to make progress, we must combine all those elements. I referred a few moments ago to best practice on the part of some local authorities and very poor practice on the part of others, and it may well be a question of political will in some parts of the country.
  I want to talk not just about the infrastructure, but about the policy instruments that the Government are currently using to promote change. It would not be fair to say that they have a one-club approach, but it is not a great deal more than that. We depend heavily on the idea of a landfill tax, and we need to develop other policies such as emissions trading. The landfill tax on its own will not bring about change.
  One of the most remarkable examples of consensus at present is the belief that an increase of £3 a year will achieve nothing until the rate reaches about £35 per tonne. I am surprised that the Treasury has not taken more note of that, and I look forward to this year's pre-Budget report.
  Mr. Sheerman: Apparently the Treasury is saying that the £3 a year is not really £3 a year—that it is aiming for £35, and can increase the £3 a year. Two things would make a difference: the £35 rate, soon, and a strategic waste authority bringing all the players together and introducing some focus and direction.
  Paddy Tipping: As I have said, there is a remarkable degree of consensus.
  Mr. Sheerman: Except in the Minister's case!
  Paddy Tipping: I suspect that the problem may not lie entirely with the Minister or the Department. The Department has to talk to friends and colleagues in other Departments, particularly the Treasury. If we want better waste management we must pay more for it, though, and by definition that means raising the landfill tax.
  We need to go further than that. We need to look at a graduated disposal tax and at taxing the various forms of disposal according to their environmental benefit. Good schemes that are environmentally friendly should be subject to less tax than environmentally bad schemes. Plenty of European examples need to be examined. If we were to take that approach, we would be in a position to tax incineration.
  I know that many Labour Members and other hon. Members are interested in incineration. I understand the concerns that exist throughout the country about that.
  570
  We need to reflect that that public concern basically springs from public health worries and the scare of cancer.
  The Government told us in their evidence that they did not believe that there would be a great expansion in incineration. The Select Committee made a simple point: the Government need to set out their position on incineration. Why are they saying that? If one could, for example, develop a locally based, efficient, energy-from-waste scheme, there would be some mileage in looking at that, but we need to be clear why there is opposition to incineration. To take incineration entirely out of the equation would be short-sighted.
  Sue Doughty: The hon. Gentleman has pointed out that people have concerns about the health aspects of incineration. Those concerns are real, but does he accept that people have other concerns about incineration: while we burn things, we are not using those resources in other ways? There is increasing concern about that, too.
  Paddy Tipping: There is concern, but we need to be clear on what grounds we are opposing incineration. There are plenty of grounds to do so, but if the Government are opposing incineration, they need to be clear why. The Select Committee made a simple proposition: the Government should make their position clear on incineration, addressing particularly the health and environmental implications of that type of disposal.
  Mr. Adrian Flook: Does the hon. Gentleman include incinerating waste in power plants, thereby recycling a lot of fuels?
  Paddy Tipping: I thought that I made that point earlier. If I did not, I make it clear now that I believe that the only way forward for incineration is locally based, efficient, energy-from-waste schemes. If a scheme came forward on that basis, rational people would find it hard to oppose it.
  I make a point on another policy strand: household charging and the possibility of direct charging, or variable charging. I feel strongly that local authorities should have the opportunity to experiment and to pilot that. Part of the problem at the moment is that people feel that they are getting waste disposal and waste collection for free. They are not. They are getting it through the council tax. If the link were clearer, if there were some direct charging or, more particularly, some experience of direct charging, perhaps we could make progress.
  There seems to be a strong case for the Government to conclude their reflection on that. They have not ruled it out. They are looking at the issue but there is a strong case for allowing some local determination and local decision making on that matter.
  Ian Lucas: Does my hon. Friend agree that at the heart of the issue is the central concern that the general public see waste as someone else's problem, rather than their own problem, and that the best way of bringing it home to them as their own problem is to grasp the nettle and to look at direct charging?
  Paddy Tipping: I agree entirely, although I would offer a slightly different description. I am not advocating

  571
  universal direct charging; at this stage, I am advocating what the Select Committee argued for—the opportunity to experiment—because there are pros and cons. However, my hon. Friend makes a very important point about waste disposal being detached from us, and not our concern.
  These are real concerns in my own county of Nottinghamshire. Local people are vigorously opposing new landfill sites planned at the Bentink void and at Bilsthorpe. But the real way to fight landfill schemes is to recycle more and compost more. In Nottinghamshire, it looks as though we will have real difficulty in achieving the 17 per cent. target next year.
  Mr. Sheerman: Perhaps I can help Nottinghamshire. As my hon. Friend knows, I chair Urban Minds, which builds sustainable growth parks. The real answer that Nottinghamshire is looking for is a 38th themed industrial park. Such sites not only create jobs; all the businesses—small, medium and large—on our sites use waste as their raw material. That is the way forward and I recommend it to my hon. Friend.
  Paddy Tipping: I am very grateful for that offer of assistance—in fact, I was about to ask for some help from the Minister himself. When he has the chance to look up from his desk, perhaps he will note the £32 million bid for a private finance initiative scheme in Nottinghamshire.
  I commend the Select Committee's report, and I firmly draw the Minister's attention to the letter from Nottinghamshire county council.
  4.41 pm
  Ms Joan Walley: It is always a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping), who has a long record of service to this House on environmental issues. I should perhaps begin by following his example in referring to absent friends. I want to pay tribute to the work of the Chairman of the Environmental Audit Committee, the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Horam). He was unable to join us today, so I am deputising for him.
  It is important that we debate the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee report and the Environmental Audit Committee report, because there is a huge amount of common ground between them. I should of course point out that the Environmental Audit Committee ranges across all Government Departments. In dealing with waste issues, it is important that we have the whole picture, and that we ensure that environmental issues are at the heart of each Department. It is therefore significant that the House is debating the two reports jointly.
  Before discussing in detail the points that I wish to make—this is my first opportunity to do so—I want to put on the record my personal thanks, and the thanks of countless others who care about the environment, to my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher), the former Minister for the Environment, who is a very good friend of mine. He showed commitment and dedication, demonstrated a
  572
  grasp of the complicated environment agenda, and enjoyed the trust of environmental groups throughout the country. His contribution was second to none, and I hope that he can in some way continue to play a constructive role in environmental policy. I wish him well. I am sure that we will never know the detail of the many battles that he fought on our behalf.
  I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) to his new role as Minister for the Environment. He, too, is a very good friend, a very old friend and a very green friend. I share the view, publicly expressed, of the former Minister for the Environment that if someone else has to do the job, my hon. Friend the Member for Scunthorpe is a good choice. I wish him well.
  Mr. Sheerman: As the new Minister is such a good friend of my hon. Friend, perhaps she should check out his health, as we go in for very robust debates on these issues.
  Ms Walley: I did begin by pointing out that there is a great deal of commonality in terms of the work of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and the Environmental Audit Committee. Just because we are in a congratulatory mode, no one should believe that we will do anything other than carry on being the terrier that bites the Government's heels, keeping a close watch on everything that happens.
  I do not expect for one moment that the new Minister for the Environment will have had the chance, during the few days that he has been in his post, to be 100 per cent. up to speed on the detail of the estimates. I hope, however, that in his reply today and in his day-to-day work—in the House, in his Department and across Departments—he will grasp the fine detail of his brief. I have to tell him that on this subject the devil is in the detail, and we desperately need him to be a green champion in the Government.
  That brings me squarely to this afternoon's debate. Many of us have an overwhelming sense that time is running out: we are up against the clock in respect of the number of hon. Members who want to speak in the debate and in respect of getting the agenda right. We cannot afford to get it wrong. Today, the Select Committee report should make an important contribution to the case for proper funding across the Government for waste management. We may be aware that the Government are listening and making all the right noises about tackling the issue, but when we survey the scale of the problem and the need for urgent action—stressed by just about all the witnesses who gave evidence—we know that time is running out. We have to take the pace of change into account. The most important recommendations are that the Government take urgent action and that our green Minister ensure that all Departments take urgent action.
  We assessed the progress made towards achieving sustainable waste management since the launch of the Government's waste strategy in 2000. We audited performance in recycling and recovery, and found that, based on current trends, the UK is not likely to reach the target set in the waste strategy, which is a matter of great concern.
  That should be set against the background of why it is so important to deal with waste. In every hour of every day, enough waste is produced in the UK to fill the

  573
  Albert hall—and I do not know how many Chambers of the House of Commons could be fitted into that hall. Every year, England and Wales throw away 470 million tonnes of waste—a rate 22 per cent. higher than the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development average. We face the startling fact that the UK's waste mountain, already large, is growing. The annual rise in the amount of municipal waste has been 3.4 per cent. since 1996–97. That provides us with a clear picture of why it is so important that the Government estimates are seen as reflecting the need to act urgently and boldly.
  We agree with the view stated in the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee report, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping), that the Government are being too timid. We used the word "timid" in our report, too. The Government have certainly been too timid so far in their combined response to the waste mountain.
  I can also tell the House that I am in 100 per cent. agreement with our Prime Minister on the need to be bold in our handling of the public service agenda. Just this week in his speech to the Fabian Society, setting out his reform agenda, the Prime Minister said that public services were just not moving rapidly enough with the times to meet rising expectations in a modern consumer society. In such a society there is so much throw-away and so little consideration of the longer term or the longer lasting. Nowhere more than in respect of waste management has the impact of the legacy of decades of underspending in the Tory years been greater.
  Mr. Sheerman: Did my hon. Friend congratulate the Labour Government, and the Prime Minister in particular, on being bold in getting rid of the landfill tax credit scheme? That has meant the end of hundreds of little environmental groups, which did so much good work throughout the country, and led to the unemployment of many working in the environmental sector. Is that boldness at its best?
  Ms Walley: My hon. Friend's interventions show how well he understands the waste agenda and the importance of not confusing boldness with the long-term changes that we want. When we act, we must remain consistent with our principles on the environment and remain aware of the importance of employment at a local level. We should ensure that the work carried out under previous arrangements is not just obliterated overnight. I hope that when my hon. Friend the Minister responds, he will be able to give a little more information about the new guidance that will apply, so that we do not lose all the best practice that has been built up over the years.
  We need to be bold, in a way that is sustainable in the long term and environmentally correct. Waste minimisation must be a priority for action. The importance of waste minimisation was one of the key findings of our report. Following the Committee's recommendations, we also want to see the immediate introduction of measures to ensure the delivery of targets on recovery and recycling. We had some reference to those measures earlier in the debate.
  However the Government decide to achieve those targets, we have to ensure that we involve and empower local government, as well as provide incentives for it. We
  574
  cannot succeed in our agenda without local government playing a key part. An early report mentioned the importance of incineration, but one of the recommendations in our report was a moratorium on incineration plans, at least in the short term, because of concerns about public health. The Treasury review is welcome, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will address it when he winds up.
  We must also accept that the future of waste management will involve many more smaller, specialist waste disposal facilities and that there will be greater pressure on the waste planning system and the land use planning system. It is important that the Government accept and facilitate that. Many of us who are involved with the detail of policy in our constituencies know only too well how waste disposal licences and planning do not always go hand in hand. We want the Government to get it right.
  We shall want a full reply to our report in due course, over and above the Government's response to the waste strategy unit's report, "Waste Not, Want Not", which was published on 6 May. That response will be the real key to how the Government will be able to deliver the means to achieve our recycling targets, reduce volumes of waste, and encourage the starting of new businesses that can use new technologies and innovation to make a real difference. The report makes 34 recommendations for action as part of a waste implementation programme. Those are all well and good, as is the acceptance that more co-ordination within and between Departments and stakeholders is necessary. That makes particular sense to the Environmental Audit Committee, because it is our brief to scrutinise policy across all Departments and view the whole picture.
  It would be interesting to hear from the Minister whether he intends to focus all waste policy in one Department, which would make sense, but which the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs seemed to rule out when she appeared before our Committee in February. We would be interested in discussing that point with the Minister in the long term. We really need to know details of the Government's response to the strategy unit report, which until now has sidestepped calls for further Government funding. Will the Minister reject the report or will he call for a fundamental shift in strategic direction, including the recommendation for lower VAT rates on recycled products, and for statutory waste reduction targets for councils?
  Having concentrated so far on the purpose and findings of our inquiry, I shall now address the issue of how the Committee's report fits into the wider picture. I wish to impress on the Minister why it is so important that we press the Government to use the opportunity of this vote on estimates to do the right thing for next year's funding.
  We cannot afford to get this matter wrong, because no elected representative—whether elected to this House, the Welsh Assembly or some local government body—has to deal with bigger issues than fly tipping, rubbish and litter. Constituents care about those problems more than any other. They can see that something needs to be done, and there is a real danger that they will lose trust in public representatives if action is not taken.

  575
  We must meet our environmental obligations and responsibilities, and no issues provoke a bigger response, as our mailbags show. We must do something about antisocial behaviour and illegal operations that pollute and foul our countryside and urban spaces. Those actions turn our environment into an eyesore and undermine our quality of life, so it is really important that all Government Departments are involved.
  The Committee's report highlights the valid concerns of local councils, such as mine in Stoke-on-Trent. Although the environmental protection and cultural services block in the standard spending assessment has been increased slightly above the rate of inflation, it is by no means enough to enable councils to allocate the amounts that they would like to allocate to deal with this most pressing of problems, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) noted earlier. The increase is above the rate of inflation, but is still not enough, especially given the problem of fridges that has been described already.
  The Committee therefore concluded that inadequate funding and a lack of clear Government guidance have made it harder rather than easier for local authorities to reach the targets that they have been set. The measures taken to date do not reflect the urgency of the need for improvement. I recognise that the most recent statistics from the municipal waste management survey showed that the proportion of household waste recycled in England, including composting, rose from 11.2 to 12.4 per cent. between 2000–01 and 2001–02. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will refer to that when he replies to the debate, but the figures are not sufficient cause for celebration, as the overall amount being sent to landfill is still increasing.
  There is also the matter of garden waste, on which I sometimes wonder whether the Government's policy is not somewhat perverse. When we talk about recycling, we must make sure that we are talking about additional recycling. We must not talk about what is already happening just because that puts the figures in a more attractive light.
  In evidence to the Committee, the Environment Agency said that it had made two proposals to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for additional funding—for a fly tipping abatement taskforce, and for a national waste data centre for England and Wales. The National Audit Office has endorsed the proposals already, so I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to tell me, when he replies to the debate, that both applications will be funded in full. If so, it will be possible to make the necessary changes.
  I know a little of the difficulties being experienced by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) in securing support from the Treasury, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and DEFRA for her current private Member's Bill. I therefore want to inform our new Minister that we expect him to overcome any resistance that there might be in the Treasury in respect of funding in full the two Environment Agency applications that I have described. Will he assure the House that, when the estimates are agreed, there will be a clear commitment to funding both the fly tipping taskforce and the data centre? Is the
  576
  Treasury on board when it comes to those projects? If not, I hope that he will convey to the Treasury that the Environmental Audit Committee will keep on and on about the matter until we get some progress.
  Full funding for both projects makes sound economic sense. They go hand in hand with the precautionary principle, which we have been assured underpins the Government's environmental policies these days. I hope that the Treasury will understand that, for the very good reasons that we have heard already.
  The Treasury must understand that landfill costs will increase, and that the landfill directive will impact on the banning of certain waste streams to landfill as the ban on co-disposal of hazardous waste comes into play. The producer responsibility regulations will also have a huge impact. We have heard already about how we need to deal with European directives and ensure that they are co-ordinated properly with everything else that the House does.
  The Treasury must understand, too, that the European waste catalogue changes the definitions of waste and materials, and that reclassification will have an impact on waste as well. All those pressures will mean more waste, less cheap landfill, higher disposal costs, more illegal activity and organised criminal dumping. If I had time, I could give examples of dumping all round the country for which the clean-up costs far exceed the small amount needed to fund those Environment Agency initiatives.
  There are pressures on responsible operators, and we need to make sure that they can flourish. We need to get rid of cowboy operators and others who seek to exploit the situation. We can no longer afford not to fund in full what we need now. The longer we leave it, the more costly it will be in the long term, and we run the risk of further undermining public trust and confidence in our services and our ability to clean up our towns and cities.
  I hope that the Minister and the Government appreciate the urgency required. We cannot wait for real action until the next spending round, the effects of which will not show until 2005. Before the House is a catalogue of detailed work by two Select Committees. We want a commitment from the Government to show that they take seriously the work of Back-Bench MPs charged with scrutinising their work.
  5.1 pm
  Norman Baker: I congratulate the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) on her speech. She has been consistently sound on the environment, and I, like many others, am disappointed that she has not been given a job in the Government. Her expertise should have been put to more constructive use than it has been.
  I welcome the Minister to his post and congratulate him on his promotion. When he comes to understand the scale of the waste and GM problems, he may want to scuttle back to the common fisheries policy.
  The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Elliot Morley): No.
  Norman Baker: Well, time will tell. The Minister certainly faces major challenges, not least in taking on

  577
  the Treasury. Even if he sorts out his own Department, big problems elsewhere have to be solved. That will be a key matter for him. If his predecessor, for whom I have tremendous respect, was not able to do that, it will be a real challenge for the Minister, and the success or failure of his time in Government will depend on it.
  The waste problem is enormous, and the Government face several prongs of attack. First, there are the EU directive requirements on landfill. Secondly, the Government's own recycling targets are difficult to meet, given the base from which they are starting. Thirdly, the cost to UK industry of disposing of solid wastes, liquid and gas is £15 billion a year, which is 4.5 per cent. of annual turnover. That is a gigantic cost to industry. Peter Jones of Biffa Waste Services has said that waste management will be in crisis in five years and that it will cost the UK economy an additional £2 billion a year.
  The problem exists and is running away with us. The Government do not have time to take a leisurely approach. They need to move up a couple of gears, as the two Select Committees have said. The Minister does not have time to set up a couple of task forces and working parties that will return in 12 months to tell him what we already know. He must get moving, and we need action from DEFRA this year and from the Treasury in the next Budget.
  The waste that is being generated is increasing. Our first problem is that we are not cutting waste, but getting further from the European landfill directive targets. The proportion of municipal waste is declining, according to the Environmental Audit Committee report, but the overall amount of waste sent to landfill is increasing: it was 21.9 million tonnes in 1999, and 22.1 million tonnes in 2000. As the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North said, every hour of every day, enough waste is produced in the UK to fill the Albert hall. We know, at least, courtesy of the Select Committee, how many waste holes it takes to fill the Albert hall.
  Some 65 million tonnes of rubbish was dumped or buried in this country last year. That is a gigantic amount. There is a whole series of waste streams, and I fear that each must be tackled individually. There is no simple answer; the answer differs for each waste stream. Some 6 billion—I have checked this figure to make sure that it is right—disposable nappies ended up in landfill sites last year. Some 24 million car tyres and 94 million fridges were dumped. About 5,500 tonnes of furniture—equivalent to 82,000 double beds—and 226,000 old cars were dumped in the countryside and elsewhere. Around 32 million printer cartridges were buried. The list goes on and on. The problem is enormous, and we must stem the waste stream. Unfortunately, a lot of the waste is ending up in the countryside. In an answer from the Minister's predecessor to me on 4 March, fly tipping last year led to 600,000 tonnes of waste being deposited on agricultural land alone, never mind all the bits and pieces around our towns and cities. That is an enormous amount of waste. I could list what that constitutes, but time does not allow.
  Fly tipping is getting out of control. One of the problems is the lack of enforcement. People fly-tip because the Government are, correctly, increasing the cost of landfill, although I should like to see it increased faster, but they are not putting in place simultaneously measures to ensure that those who fly-tip are, if possible,
  578
  caught, prosecuted and fined. That does not happen. A further parliamentary answer on 20 March from the Minister's predecessor showed that in 2001 there were only 225 prosecutions for fly tipping although 600,000 tonnes of waste was fly-tipped. It does not take much imagination to work out that it is in people's interests to fly-tip because they are not likely to be caught, and even if they are caught, they will probably get away with a minuscule fine. We must clamp down on fly tipping more effectively.
  The Government have the hierarchy right and so far they have been good in theory, but not in practice. Everybody in and beyond the House is signed up to their hierarchy. It puts waste minimisation first. We all agree that we should cut waste, but we know that that is not happening. Waste is increasing in volume. What are the Government doing to minimise waste? We hear a lot about recycling, and we hear about incineration and landfill, but we do not hear anything about waste minimisation. I see no indication that the Government have grabbed hold of this at all.
  It is difficult because some of these matters are EU competencies and many Members do not want to see any taxation on virgin products, which would go some way to dealing with waste minimisation. Instead, the packaging directive simply encourages more recycling. That is good as far as it goes, but it does not deal with the volume of packaging produced in the first place. We must improve on waste minimisation.
  The report from the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee at paragraph 17 states:
  "measures to encourage waste minimisation [in the UK] remain very weak."
  I hope that the Minister will pick up that specific point when he replies. The Environmental Audit Committee report states:
  "No target has been set for waste minimisation. The resources available under the National Waste Minimisation and Recycling Fund have been largely directed at recycling projects rather than waste minimisation efforts. Few other levers to stimulate waste minimisation exist to compensate for this. We agree with the OECD's assessment that UK measures to encourage waste minimisation are very weak."
  The description "very weak" is given by both Committees in terms of the effort to minimise waste. We have to get to grips with that. The Government must start leading by example and say how they will minimise waste.
  Reuse is the next part of the strategy. It has its merits. There are still reuse schemes. I am happy to say that there is an excellent one in my constituency for Harvey's beer. The brewery has returnable bottles, which are still used by large numbers of my constituents, myself included, so I declare an interest. I know that it is not possible to have reuse schemes across the whole country. The long distances and the environmental life cycle analysis would not justify it, but surely we could do more to encourage it. What are the Government doing, for example, to ensure that we do not lose our milk rounds? Plenty of milk is still delivered in glass bottles. The average milk bottle has a life expectancy of 17 trips. The same does not apply to plastic bottles from supermarkets, yet supermarket plastic milk is cheaper by and large than milk delivered in glass bottles on the doorstep. That is a perverse economic incentive not to use the best environmental option for buying milk. What are the Government doing about reuse?

  579
  The Government's concentration on recycling has not always been successful. In 2002, we recycled only 5.7 per cent. of organic waste, compared with 75 per cent. in Austria. We recycled 47 per cent of card and paper, compared with 90 per cent. in Germany. We are near the bottom of the EU recycling league table. It gives me no pleasure to say that, and it is no reflection on a particular Government: that is where we are as a nation and we must address the problem much more effectively.
  When I visited the constituency of the Minister's predecessor, the right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher), I was astonished to find that Oldham borough council, in a building that it was demolishing, had to pay £9 per window to recycle the window and reuse the pieces but only £5 to landfill the window. What kind of incentive is that? It is, again, up to the Treasury. The economics must be right so that individuals, businesses and local authorities can take the right environmental decisions. Currently, they take decisions that are financially, not environmentally, beneficial.
  The Treasury has a major role, which it is not discharging in the way that many of us want. It must ensure that the environmental option is always the cheaper one. That is not the case at present.
  The Government should say firmly that they are in favour of doorstep or kerbside recycling for every household in the country and ensure that they will the means for it. My local authority in Lewes is struggling to introduce doorstep recycling: it is trying to roll out a scheme but finds that it is cheaper to carry on using landfill. That is mad. We have challenging targets and EU regulations, with penalties for non-compliance, yet councils have to landfill because they do not have enough money to set up doorstep or kerbside recycling schemes.
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth: I am sorry to hear what the hon. Gentleman says about his constituency and about Oldham, which is controlled by the Liberal Democrats and has one of the worst recycling records in the country. How does he explain the fact that there is a doorstep recycling scheme in my constituency and that an excellent one has recently been introduced in Wandsworth, where it has proved extremely popular?
  Norman Baker: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman intervened to make a party point, because I have scrupulously tried not to be party political in my speech. I could give the House examples of Lib Dem authorities that have extremely high recycling rates as well ones where the rates are lower. It all depends on when contracts were changed, on the direct labour force and on the rate support grant and the finances available to the council. A combination of factors is involved, as the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge. The fact remains that it is cheaper to landfill than to recycle, and that is part of the problem.
  Gregory Barker: The hon. Gentleman is being uncharacteristically modest about his constituency. A large part of his constituency is, like a large part of mine, run by Conservative-controlled Wealden council, which has an excellent recycling record.
  Norman Baker: Yes, it does. Furthermore, Lewes's record is considerably better than it was. Again, I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman made a party intervention. I am happy to accept that Wealden council has a good recycling record. Equally, I am happy to accept that the London borough of Sutton led the country on recycling. All parties can offer good and bad examples. It does not profit us in this important debate to pick on particular councils. The point is that the Treasury must ensure that the economic indicators are right, and it has not yet done so.
  I have some comments about incineration. The Government are bringing in legislation merely to meet EU directives. The Waste and Emissions Trading Bill, which should be about delivering a sensible waste strategy, in line with the Government's policy, is actually the EU landfill directive implementation Bill. The Government are running after all the EU directives, saying, "What do we have to do meet this target from Brussels?" instead of getting properly involved. One of the criticisms made by the Committees was that the Government did not pick up on EU directives and targets quickly enough.
  The Government have to cut drastically the amount of landfill. They are going to up recycling a bit, although not as much as they might—their targets are modest. What will fill the gap? Incineration. The Minister's predecessor constantly told us that the Government were not in favour of a massive increase in incineration. Well, they may not be in favour of it, but they are going to get it. The logical conclusion of the Government's policy of capping landfill at 35 per cent. and increasing recycling to 35 or 40 per cent. is that everything else will be incinerated. Local authorities are currently taking decisions to meet the Government's targets and they are opting for the simple solution: incinerators.
  Unless the Government quickly get their act together on recycling, reuse and waste minimisation, a chain of incinerators, approved by local councils and the Government in accordance with their waste plans, will cover the country. We shall replace landfill capacity with incinerator capacity. The Minister will have to deal with that problem unless he wants incinerators all over the country. It is no good his shaking his head. Those are the facts. I suggest that he talk to his colleague, the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead), who decimated the Government's arguments on that point on Second Reading of the Waste and Emissions Trading Bill.
  I congratulate the two Committees on their work. They have made some pertinent points and the fact that they both considered the issue shows that a major issue is facing this country, and I very much hope that the Government will take on board the points that they have made. The Minister's previous comments and those of his predecessors demonstrate that they are committed, but we have not yet seen the action to realise their commitment.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. Very little time is left for the remainder of this debate. I cannot expect hon. Members to cut their speeches to ribbons, so I suspect that some will be disappointed, but I hope that they will nevertheless try to bear it in mind that we want to get in as many speeches as we can.
  5.15 pm
  Mr. Robert Key: On behalf of my constituents, I thank both Select Committees for their excellent reports. There is much to be learned from them. In particular, I refer to the report of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee, which has been quite harsh in its judgment of the Government. In paragraph 20 of its report, it says that
  "Defra still appears to lack the capacity, the vision, the sense of urgency and the political will to break the mould and bring about truly sustainable waste management in this country."
  I suspect that that is a little harsh, because we are all in this together. In fact, we are all green now, and there is a lot to be gained from the vote motive that is involved, as we discovered at the recent district council elections, when the Conservatives on Salisbury district council had a recycling policy as a major plank of their election manifesto, and I am glad to say that they won handsomely.
  I was very attracted by the fact that, in paragraph 56 of the report, the Committee said that it agreed
  "with the Local Government Association that variable charging for household waste collection should not be regarded as an additional source of revenue for local authorities but primarily as a means of changing householders' behaviour."
  That is absolutely crucial. We all have to mend our ways when it comes to recycling. We have fallen substantially behind most of our European partners in managing household waste. For example, just across the water in France, there is a twice-weekly recycling service and each household divides its waste for recycling into four bins or receptacles, three of which are collected twice a week and the other fortnightly. It is a question of what people are prepared to pay for and of changing our own habits.
  Before I go any further, I should like to remind the House that none of this esoteric discussion in which we are indulging this afternoon would make a hap'orth of difference if it were not for the men and women of the refuse collection services who go out in fair weather and foul, summer and winter, doing a filthy job. Whatever the weather, they are among the most cheerful, loyal and hard-working people who vote for us—or not—and they serve the whole community so well, and I give my thanks to them.
  Something else that matters—the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) referred to this—is the fact that there are huge variations across the country, often depending on the sort of authority or council that collects and gets rid of the waste. The county council does so in my case. In countryside areas, such as Salisbury and south Wiltshire—which covers an enormous area, 400 square miles, with 48,700 domestic properties and 114,000 people—it is very difficult and expensive to organise waste collection and transport. In fact, that is an absolute doddle in the inner cities or for many of the unitary authorities, which are just a couple of miles square, and that is very important to bear in mind.
  In my constituency, the district council, which is small but covers a huge area, has certainly done very well, but it still has huge and growing volumes of waste. Last year, 39,420 tonnes of household waste went to landfill. Kerbside collection recovered 4,361 tonnes of paper and cardboard for recycling, and 2,847 tonnes of mixed
  582
  recycled materials were recovered at the 41 mini recycling centres throughout the district. Some 16 per cent. of household waste is recycled. The targets are achievable for our local authority. We are determined to achieve them. We will do it. We will go right up to the 36 per cent. recycling target by 2010. That is pretty good, and I suspect that the target will increase to 45 per cent., as it is on the district council's wish list to aim high.
  One of the big problems is the expense of specialist recycling and collection, particularly of refrigerators. Some extraordinary activity has occurred over the past couple of years—I will not go into it, because the Government know very well what I am talking about—but meeting the increase in the disposal of refrigerators is costing my local authority at least £11,000 a year. In relation to fly tipping, my district council has spent a further £11,000 this year on keeping three or four regular—in the irregular sense—sites clear, and it has spent more than £30,000 in the past year on removing fly-tipped waste, which is a huge additional cost. In 1998, it had to deal with 170 abandoned vehicles, and in 2002, 598. Two members of staff are engaged full-time in investigating those incidents and administering the procedure for abandoned vehicles. Incidentally, one of those staff is a dog warden who has been taken off dog warden duties and put on abandoned car duties, which has upset quite a lot of dog walkers. Just dealing with abandoned vehicles has resulted in a huge additional cost of £86,000 a year.
  A lot of good has also come from this policy, however, and the community projects are very important locally. Talking about Government policy is one thing, but what is really important is changing the mind of the local community. The St. Edmund's ward in Salisbury comprises about 1,200 households. In June last year, it formed a community association to tackle some local problems, one of which was lack of facilities for local waste recycling. It therefore started work with the district council's waste minimisation and recycling officer. It organised a mini recycling centre, a free-to-use community notice board to allow for exchange of unwanted items, a community recycling directory distributed to all households, composting bins, dry receptacles for recyclable goods, reusable kerbside waste paper collection bags, and so on. A great deal can be done, and is being done, at local level.
  I want to commend the work of the Wiltshire wildlife trust because it too has a recycling officer who has been working with the district council in an innovative way. There is a home composting officer, as well as 22 volunteers who advise local households on how to set up proper composting bins at a reduced price of £6 a bin, and they organise shredding events, country and garden shows and goodness knows what. Community composting is therefore a serious part of the agenda.
  The county council too has been working hard, and I wish to commend its policy. Although it does not do the collection, its forward planning and waste programme is absolutely crucial, because without it none of the desired results will be delivered. It has a pooled recycling system and a pooled recycling target with the district council, and is one of only six waste disposal authorities to be granted a target to achieve 33 per cent. recycling by 2005–06. It is also looking at waste-to-energy programmes, reuse and above all reduction, because

  583
  time and again the onus is put back on individual households—on you and me, Mr. Deputy Speaker—and education and awareness are part of that.
  I do not want to continue at greater length, except to touch on a serious waste issue on which the Government have been consulting: chewing gum, and whether it should be regarded as waste. As the Minister will know, his Department is consulting on whether it should legislate to define chewing gum as waste in these circumstances. It does an enormous amount of harm to our environment, to streets, to pedestrianised shopping areas and even, I notice, to the colonnade between Portcullis House and this House, which is now spotted with chewing gum, which is an expensive problem. A month or two ago, I sought the advice of the Wrigley Company, with which I had a heated discussion. I was told that I had it all wrong, and that it was not the fault of the chewing gum because
  "chewing gum is no different from any other kind of litter".
  The company said that the disposal of gum is at fault because that is the way in which it becomes litter. I am sure that that forms part of the problem, and we know that the company has worked for many years with the keep Britain tidy campaign and its successor. Yes, public behaviour must change, but I do not want to go down the Singapore route of making chewing gum a controlled substance that cannot be sold, and nor do I think that it would be practical to issue huge fines—but why does north America not have a large chewing gum problem? People in New York and Washington do not complain about the problem of chewing gum on the streets, but the problem is serious in this country.
  English Heritage told me that chewing gum causes an expensive problem in several of the properties that it manages. My district council says that it causes an expensive and time-consuming problem in our historic city because only a short time is available to get the slow and cumbersome machines that deal with the problem on to the streets before businesses open. We must pursue a solution—I know that the Government intend to do something about it.
  I was most disappointed by the Wrigley Company's attitude. It has 90 per cent. of the market in this country—Cadbury Schweppes has only a small market share because it has been at it for only a couple of years. The companies cannot ignore the problem that they are creating and for which we are paying. I accept that we are grateful to the Wrigley Company for providing employment in Plymouth, but the impact of the pollutants that it produces is o at of all proportion compared with the benefits for our economy. It is no good for the company to say, "Well, biodegradable chewing gum is very difficult and nobody's going to like it." We had better find out about that, because the House will otherwise have to consider more seriously whether chewing gum is a desirable product at all.
  I am not against chewing gum—I chew gum myself. I think that it is quite a good idea to chew gum in the car to maintain one's concentration. However, I do not throw gum out of my car window. I wrap it in a nice bit of silver paper and put it in a receptacle when I reach my destination.
  584
  I ask the Minister to take the issue seriously. I know that people sometimes laugh about it, but chewing gum causes a huge unsightly problem that is expensive to deal with. Speaking on behalf of managers of the centres of historic towns such as Salisbury, I hope that the Government will consider the problem in the wider context of the future of waste management.
  5.27 pm
  Mr. David Lepper: May I add my tribute to those that have been paid to my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher) and welcome his worthy successor, my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment?
  Hon. Members have talked about departmental weaknesses and the problems of pinning down responsibility for waste and waste management, which the two reports before us highlight. The reports also question the political will and resources available to deal with those important issues. The hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) spoke about another aspect of the problem, which is summed up by a quotation in the report by the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee. Southwark borough council was quoted in the report as saying:
  "In some respects, you could throw loads of money at us and we would set up all the infrastructure, we would have all the vehicles, all of the equipment, but it all comes back to changing people's culture, changing people's habits."
  I do not want to let the Government off the hook in terms of policy and the availability of resources, but the statement makes an important point.
  I want to concentrate on good practice that can be used to change people's habits by citing examples from my constituency, I am proud to say. Perhaps we should start changing people's habits at birth. I am pleased that Brighton and Hove's real nappy promotion project won an award last year from Biffa and the Women's Environmental Network. Seven councils, two hospitals, 10 businesses, a nursery and the National Childbirth Trust are involved in the project, which tries to persuade new parents to use reusable nappies. I understand that reusable nappies today are nothing like the squares of terry towelling that I recall from the days when my children were young.
  The issue is important. The hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) will know that every year East Sussex county council and Brighton and Hove city council dispose of 15,520 tonnes of nappies in the Beddingham landfill site in his constituency. I welcome the fact that DEFRA has provided support for our local project to appoint a project officer to expand its work. It aims to increase by 5 per cent. in one year and 10 per cent. in two years the number of parents with new babies who use reusable nappies.
  Norman Baker: Not reusable.
  Mr. Lepper: I mean non-disposable nappies.
  Let me move from birth to children. Our report highlights one anomaly. Environmental Campaigns Ltd.—Encams—has done a great deal of work on encouraging schools to become eco-schools and to think seriously about recycling. But a letter to the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee from

  585
  my constituent, Rob Stephenson, who works for Encams and is quoted in our report, highlights the anomaly that for many local authorities schools are regarded as commercial enterprises and cannot take advantage of participating in local recycling schemes. The report makes a recommendation on dealing with that which I hope the Minister takes into account.
  When the Select Committee visited Denmark, one of the interesting projects that we saw was involved in recycling waste from construction and demolition sites. We were told that 90 per cent. of such waste in Denmark is recycled in some way or another. That is because of an agreement between the Danish Government and the Danish Construction Association. Nothing like that exists in this country and I recommend the idea to the Minister.
  My constituency has the Brighton and Hove wood recycling project. It won the national social enterprise award 2002, awarded by the Department of Trade and Industry, NatWest and the Royal Bank of Scotland for entrepreneurial thinking, environmental concern and social change. It began because Richard Mehmed dug around in skips, as he put it. He now runs a major local recycling business.
  I recommend to my hon. Friend the Minister the excellent work by the university of Brighton's environmental body under its chief executive, Marie Harder, both to monitor recycling work going on in the East and West Sussex and Brighton and Hove areas and to examine important issues, such as recycling end-of-life vehicles, so that the metal and the plastics are reused—good practice that I commend to the Department.
  5.33 pm
  Gregory Barker: May I also start by paying tribute to the right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher)? He and I crossed swords numerous times during my short two years in Parliament, both in the Chamber and in Select Committee, but my respect for him grew steadily in that time. Although at the outset of this Administration, the Prime Minister's regard for the environmental agenda was not sufficient to persuade him of the need to put the right hon. Gentleman at the head of a Department, the right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton was nevertheless able to achieve far more in his six years in government, and leave a better legacy, than many of his nominally more senior colleagues inside the Cabinet. His departure from the Government will leave a gaping hole in DEFRA, and I fear it may signal a further downgrading of the environmental causes that he so ably championed
  The Environmental Audit Committee's waste inquiry is, without diminishing the other reports that it produced in the past 12 months, the most important document that it published in the past year. Why? Because waste touches every one of our constituencies and waste is inextricably bound up with the daily lives of each and every one of our constituents. Some 30 million tonnes of waste are produced annually in UK. According to the most recent but still relatively dated figures, of that, 80 per cent. goes to landfill, 12 per cent. is recycled and a growing 8 per cent. is incinerated. Far from reducing the amount of waste we produce, it has grown at an average rate of 3.4 per cent. per
  586
  annum in recent years. Between 1999 and 2001, it outstripped the growth of our gross domestic product, so we are throwing away our rubbish faster than we are producing it. On current trends, the total amount of waste that the UK produces annually will double by 2020. However, the EAC found that 25 per cent. of local authorities were likely to miss statutory recycling targets in 2005 and 2006.
  In my Bexhill and Battle constituency no single local issue has created greater public anxiety or generated more spontaneous demonstrations of concern than the threat of landfill or incineration. The vast majority of my constituents are not narrow-minded nimbies seeking to duck the big issues created by the Government's failure to curb the year-on-year growth in waste. Energised by the threat of an incinerator at Mountfield, the continued existence of a waste plant at Pebsham or the proposal to create a massive landfill site at the top of Bexhill at Ashdown brickworks, they all want a solution that is better than simply saying, "Not in my backyard."
  My constituents, like millions of people up and down the country, want an ambitious, forward-looking programme of environmental action to deal with the whole problem. They want an over-arching holistic solution to the modern-day multi-headed Hydra of waste. The Government's singular lack of a convincing and sufficiently ambitious, coherent strategy is clearly illustrated by the EAC report. We concluded at the end of our investigation that, based on current performance, improvement would not come close to meeting any of the national targets on recycling or recovery. The targets set for 2010 and 2020, as has been noted, will be missed by a wide margin and do not appear to have a cat in hell's chance of being met.
  Inadequate and, in my view, overly complex and Byzantine funding, coupled with a lack of clear Government guidance, was cited in the Committee's conclusions as making it harder for local authorities to reach targets that have already been set. The EAC was extremely concerned that the measures taken to date do not reflect the urgent need for improvement. I am not suggesting that the Government are closing their eyes to the problem, and I give credit where credit is due. Progress has been made in the past six years. This Administration has gone further in several directions than any Government, Conservative or Labour, have gone before, but that is not enough. One cannot escape the conclusion that, at the very top of DEFRA, at the heart of Government and around the Cabinet table, the issue of waste and many other aspects of the wider environmental agenda simply do not get the priority that they deserve. The problem needs more than just a safe pair of hands. It needs conviction, imagination and ambition.
  The last appearance of the Secretary of State before the EAC on 12 February was a depressing affair. She displayed her usual sure-handed control of her brief, but exuded a wanton lack of ambition or, indeed, any sense of urgency about the issue. In a slightly petulant intervention, she said:
  "I am getting the distinct impression that an awful lot of people"—
  a reference to our witnesses—
  "who have come to see you have all got very good excuses for why they are not doing enough to tackle the problem of waste. They are all saying if only the Government did something different, but that none of them needs to do anything different."

  587
  Perhaps the Secretary of State should listen to Baroness Young, the new Labour-appointed chief of the Environment Agency, who recently said:
  "We need some overarching leadership to take us forward. There is no overall group with this responsibility. Let's look to government to fill this gap. It is not a case of all of us leaning in to fill this space."
  When I asked the Secretary of State whether she would support universal doorstep recycling, she was distinctly cool. I am glad that she has since had a rethink and supports, albeit tacitly, the excellent measure introduced by the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock). Once again, however, the Secretary of State's response shows that DEFRA is on the back foot, reacting to the debate, not leading it. There is simply a lack of leadership and resources to tackle the problem.
  I am afraid that because of time constraints, I have to cut to ribbons the speech that I intended to make. In conclusion, we need to go further on the landfill tax, which will not work without an incineration tax because, as has already been mentioned, we will upset the waste hierarchy and push more municipal waste into incinerators.
  A lack of coherent, enforceable, ambitious strategy ran through our investigation, like a blue vein in English Stilton. The right hon. Member for Oldham, West and Royton was fond of "Waste 2000", but it lacked legislative force. The Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs remains a muddle of mixed targets and priorities and the new Minister will have his work cut out in re-establishing faith in what the Department can do to meet the challenge.
  5.40 pm
  Dr. Alan Whitehead: My speech will be in shorthand. The hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) suggested that I had decimated the Government's arguments on the Waste and Emissions Trading Bill. I interpret that in the Roman sense—that nine of the 10 Government arguments stood after I had finished my speech.
  Although the changes that the Waste and Emissions Trading Bill proposes are important and supportable in instituting a trading mechanism to decrease landfill, as matters stand, landfill will probably be replaced by incineration. The survey of local authorities that I conducted—it is on my website—suggests that by 2012, approximately 78 per cent. of the population will live in areas where waste disposal authorities undertake total or partial incineration. Incineration will double rather than remain the same if nothing further is done. There are several instruments, such as an incineration tax and separation of waste collection, that can deal with the matter.
  However, I do not envy the task of my hon. Friend the Minister because it involves not only managing the waste mountain but reducing it radically. That will require radical measures. Even if incineration is avoided, a recent report by the south-east regional assembly suggested that, by 2025, approximately 192 large material recycling facilities—MRFs—and 92 new composters will be needed in the south-east alone. Will
  588
  they get planning permission? That they may not is due not simply to NIMBYism but to the use of brownfield sites for housing and industrial development. That is important in the south-east, but it removes the ability to place waste management facilities in those areas. Some form of assistance may be needed to ensure that local authorities get planning permission and find the sites for the facilities if incineration is to be avoided. I hope that the Minister takes that seriously into account in his future strategy.
  5.42 pm
  Mr. James Gray: I congratulate the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) on being telegraphic and none the less conveying a couple of useful messages. The debate has been especially interesting, well informed and balanced, with interesting speeches from Members of all parties. I hope that hon. Members will forgive me if I do not refer to all the speeches but lump them together. One of the advantages of such a debate on a Thursday afternoon is that we can speak from knowledge and, to some extent, wisdom.
  I congratulate both Select Committees on their excellent reports, which are timely, hard hitting, seminal and, in some respects, worrying. I look forward to the Minister's inaugural outing, at least in this part of his portfolio, and his response. I suspect not only that his speech this afternoon will be important, but that the Department's formal responses will constitute important documents. Sometimes such responses are lightweight, but I hope that the Department will take the opportunity of answering the points in both Select Committee reports in some detail.
  We all agree that the Government's waste strategy is not working. That is not a party political point. The Environmental Audit Committee report states:
  "The UK's waste mountain, already large, is growing."
  The Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee report begins:
  "Until now, the Government has been too timid in its waste management policy … Despite warm words from Defra ministers, the Department does not seem to have a real sense of where it wants to go".
  I could quote extensively from both reports, which are critical of the Government's waste management policy so far.
  More and more waste is produced and far too little effort is being expended on its minimisation. There is no real commitment to recycling—lip service is paid to it, but there is no real financial commitment to it—and the landfill sites are overflowing. The truth is that the country is getting dirtier and dirtier.
  I call on the Minister to acknowledge the scale of the crisis, and to acknowledge that the Government's waste strategy is, so far, clearly failing. I hope that he will come up with a few answers this afternoon and tell the House what they are going to do about this. After all, if we do nothing, we shall face large EU fines. I would rather see the taxpayer's money spent on achieving solutions than on paying out fines to the European Union for not doing so. Quite frankly, given the way that we are going at the moment, there seems little chance of achieving the EU targets.

  589
  The Government love targets, whether they are achievable or not. It is instructive to note, however, that the one target that they have not yet set is for waste minimisation. There is no point in working out wonderful strategies for getting rid of waste without attacking the root cause of the problem and doing something about waste minimisation. Most of the Government money made available for the national waste minimisation and recycling fund has gone into recycling; very little has gone into waste minimisation. We must find a way of persuading householders that they can do a great deal more to cut back on waste. Companies are doing that to a degree, although more education is needed, but householders have very little incentive to minimise the amount that they are putting into their dustbins. The Government must do more to encourage waste minimisation.
  It is also important that we should do a great deal more recycling and recovery. The Government's record on recycling so far is a disgrace. The average increase in recycling of 1 per cent. per annum means that they stand absolutely no chance of achieving their target of 25 per cent. recycling by 2005–06. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), I congratulate Wiltshire county council on the work that it is doing, and on the very successful programme that it has brought in. A number of other county councils across the nation—controlled by all three political parties—are doing similar good work, and I congratulate them on that.
  There is still not enough being done, however, and the Government are not giving people enough incentives or help in that area. We need to find ways of increasing recycling. I congratulate the hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) on getting her Municipal Waste Recycling Bill out of Committee more or less undamaged, and I hope that the Minister will reassure us that the Government will not put any blockage in its way when it comes back to the Floor of the House for its remaining stages.
  A number of hon. Members have reminded us of the diminishing availability of landfill, and of the ever-increasing use being made of it. Of course we all approve of the landfill tax; it is a useful initiative. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer)—whose special adviser I was at the time—on introducing it. It was a most useful idea, and I am glad to be able to claim a tiny part of the credit for it.
  David Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Gray: I fear that I do not have very much time. If I may, I shall rush through a few more points like a butterfly hoping to pollinate two or three of the flowers on which I land.
  The landfill tax will only work, however, if it changes human behaviour. It will be no good if it simply becomes a cash cow for the Treasury and the money goes to hospitals and schools. It must be designed to change human behaviour, and that can occur only if the size of the tax goes up at a reasonably speedy rate. However, that must not be allowed to happen at the expense of small and medium-sized businesses, which might be unable to afford it. The Government have said that the
  590
  landfill tax is to be revenue neutral; they also said that about the energy tax. We want to know how they are going to achieve that, as we have yet to hear how they will change the tax system so that the increase in the landfill tax will become revenue neutral. I regret that the landfill tax credit scheme has disappeared. It was particularly useful for all kinds of splendid local environmental schemes, such as those involving village halls. Simply using the money for things that the Government and the taxpayer would normally fund seems quite wrong. I am a strong supporter of the landfill tax credit scheme.
  I want to hear from the Minister what he intends to do about hazardous waste. A real worry is that there has been a sharp increase in the number of things that are going to be counted as hazardous waste. Televisions, oil, fluorescent lights and discarded vehicles are among the 400-odd things shortly to be listed. However, the number of sites that will be allowed to be used for hazardous waste is to decrease from 184 to only 14 by the end of 2004. So there will be a sharp increase in what may be considered hazardous waste, but a massive decline in the number of sites that we can use. The animal by-products regulations will affect that to some degree, which means a sharp increase in agricultural waste going to landfill.
  The Minister knows that, earlier this afternoon, we raised the issue of why the ash from the 250,000 tonnes of beef that will be burned as a result of the animal byproducts regulations has to go to landfill when human ash from crematoriums can be scattered on gardens if that is what we want.
  A number of Members spoke about the problems of incineration. My instinct is to be very worried about it indeed and to hope that some moratorium, or at least some limit on its increase, can be put on it. There is a natural incentive: if people do not want to use landfill, they will go for the next cheapest option, as the report says, which is incineration. That would be particularly worrying. It will be interesting to hear what the Minister has to say about that, although these remarks do not apply to energy-from-waste schemes, which are to be encouraged in every possible way.
  The reality is that we face a severe crisis in our waste management strategy. The Select Committee said, in straightforward terms:
  "We are concerned that Defra still appears to lack the capacity, the vision, the sense of urgency and the political will to break the mould and bring truly sustainable waste management to this country."
  I hope that the Minister will give us some of that vision, sense of urgency and political will.
  5.51 pm
  The Minister for the Environment (Mr. Elliot Morley): I am delighted to respond to this thoughtful and detailed debate, which has involved contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Sherwood (Paddy Tipping) and for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley), the hon. Members for Lewes (Norman Baker) and for Salisbury (Mr. Key), my hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Lepper), the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Gregory Barker), my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) and, indeed, the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray).

  591
  I am privileged to follow in the footsteps of my friend and colleague, my right hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West and Royton (Mr. Meacher). I make it very clear that I share his commitments in relation to environmental issues and, indeed, to tackling this key environmental issue. Waste and waste management are at the heart of resource productivity. They are part of the matrix of moving us through to sustainable development and tackling climate change. Reflecting that, waste is one of six strategic priorities set out in my Department's corporate strategy, which was published last month.
  This is an issue not only for the Government, although I am in no way ducking either our responsibilities or taking the lead that we must give. I endorse what the hon. Member for Salisbury said: waste minimisation is an issue for councils, industry, business, the Government and individuals. Nobody wants a new landfill site or incinerator to be sited near them, and the constituents of the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle need to ask themselves what they are doing to minimise waste in terms of their individual activities, because that is an issue for us all.
  That is why the Government welcome the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and the Environmental Audit Committee choosing to investigate waste, and why I welcome the thoughtful, detailed and, in some cases, critical speeches such as those from my hon. Friends the Members for Stoke-on-Trent, North and for Sherwood. They have a good record on green issues, and they are right that we go back a long way. Our interests are not particularly new.
  My hon. Friends also know that we take seriously the content of their reports, which are a challenge to the Government. We need to respond to them and to the reasonable and fair points that have been raised in some detail, and we will do so, but I am sure that Members understand that, given the time, I cannot enter into a detailed discussion of all the specific recommendations and conclusions.
  I absolutely accept that more needs to be done. I also accept that there are issues raised in the reports that we must take seriously in terms of meeting the objectives that we want. For example, I can say that the Cabinet Office is considering whether all waste issues can be managed by one Department and that measures proposed on fly tipping will be strengthened in the Anti-social Behaviour Bill. We are also considering further measures, because we accept the points that have been made on enforcement and dealing with what is a despicable activity in the countryside. I really cannot understand how people can do this.
  Ms Walley: In view of what he has just said about fly tipping, would my hon. Friend be kind enough to write to the Environmental Audit Committee about the new enforcement measures?
  Mr. Morley: The new measures are still being considered, but I can certainly cite the issues relating to the Anti-Social Behaviour Bill.
  592
  As has been said, our key aim is to meet our targets—to boost household recycling and composting to 17 per cent. by 2003–04 and 25 per cent. by 2005–06, and to reduce the amount of biodegradable household waste going into landfill to meet the requirements of the landfill directive by some 65 per cent. by 2020. Those are challenging targets by any standard, but I do not go along with the doom and gloom that we heard from the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray). I do not wish to duck the difficult issues that have been raised, but we think that the 17 per cent. target is within reach, and hope that the 25 per cent. target constitutes a minimum.
  The results of the latest municipal waste management survey, published in May, are not all bad news. The proportion of household waste being recycled is increasing. In 2000–02 it was 12.4 per cent., up from 11.2 per cent. Some 58 per cent. of households in England now benefit from some degree of kerbside collection of recyclates: in many instances, that has happened in the last 12 months. Things are moving in the right direction, but I know that more needs to be done. The less good news is that the amount of waste is increasing year on year, although the rate of increase slowed in 2001–02. We are reducing the proportion that goes to landfill, but the total amount is increasing. It must decrease quickly in order to meet the landfill directive targets. We are doing a great deal in that regard.
  On 6 May, the Government published their response to the strategy unit's report on waste. The timing of the inquiries meant that they could not consider their response in the context of the reports we are discussing today, but I am confident that what we have said in "Waste Not, Want Not" addresses many of the Committee's concerns. We have accepted the great majority of the recommendations and support the direction or intent of many of the others.
  The Waste and Emissions Trading Bill constitutes a direct move to reduce reliance on landfill. We are not just being driven by European directives. The Bill introduces a system of landfill allowances that will help local authorities to reduce their reliance on landfill in a cost-effective and innovative way. We will consult on the details of the scheme later in the summer. The Bill also contains a provision allowing waste disposal authorities to direct waste collection authorities to deliver waste separated. That will help waste disposal authorities to manage waste through recycling rather than disposal. We have announced our intention to table amendments on Report to make municipal waste management strategies mandatory in two-tier areas. That will help to ensure that authorities work together to plan for sustainable waste management. The Bill is a regulatory measure, but we accept that a balance is needed. We have also introduced fiscal measures to reduce reliance on landfill.
  I take the point that was raised about the role of financial instruments. We have applied a number of instruments, including statutory recycling targets, landfill allowances, the enforcement of producer responsibilities in, for instance, the waste packaging regulations, resolutions, and the waste and resources action programme. We are also considering pilots of other financial instruments.
  Gregory Barker: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Morley: I am afraid I have only two minutes left.
  The Chancellor announced that the landfill tax would rise by £3 a year from 2005 to a medium to long-term level of £35 per tonne. I listened carefully to what Members said about the level and rate of the increase, and I have some sympathy with it. I assure them that I will give it some thought.
  We are addressing the issue of waste minimisation. I have mentioned the doubling of household recycling rates. We aim to strive for that higher point in the waste hierarchy with renewed vigour. The expansion of our waste and resources action programme is the first step in that direction. It will boost waste minimisation. A quarter of a million more bins for home composting have been made available, for instance. We have a retailer initiative to reduce the amount of waste entering the waste streams. We are working with the re-usable nappy scheme. I congratulate councils that have been involved in promoting the re-use of nappies among new parents. It will help existing and new—
  It being Six o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the deferred Questions relating to Estimates which he was directed to put at that hour, pursuant to Standing Order No. 54(4) and (5) (Consideration of estimates etc.) and Order [29 October 2002].

ESTIMATES 2003–04, HOME OFFICE
Resolved,
That further resources, not exceeding £7,181,299,000, be authorised for use for the year ending on 31st March 2004, and that a further sum, not exceeding £7,391,463,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund for the year ending on 31st March 2004 for expenditure by the Home Office.

ESTIMATES 2003–04, DEPARTMENT FOR ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS
Resolved,
That further resources, not exceeding £1,386,358,000, be authorised for use for the year ending on 31st March 2004, and that a further sum, not exceeding £1.456,729,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund for the year ending on 31st March 2004 for expenditure by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.

ESTIMATES, 2003–04
Resolved,
That further resources, not exceeding £194,587,132,000, be authorised for use for defence and civil services for the year ending on 31st March 2004, and that a further sum, not exceeding £163,523,577,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to meet the costs of defence and civil services for the year ending on 31st March 2004, as set out in HC 648, 655, 656 and 657.
Ordered,
That a Bill be brought in upon the foregoing resolutions: And that the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Paul Boateng, Dawn Primarolo, Ruth Kelly and John Healey do prepare and bring it in.

CONSOLIDATED FUND (APPROPRIATION) (NO. 2) BILL
John Healey accordingly presented a Bill to authorise the use of resource; for the service of the year ending with 31st March 2004 and to apply certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending with 31st March 2004; to appropriate the further supply authorised in this Session of Parliament; and to repeal certain Consolidated Fund and Appropriation Acts: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed [Bill 123].
DELEGATED LEGISLATION

  POLICE
  Ordered,
  That the Police Act 1997 (Criminal Records) (Amendment No. 4) Regulations 2003 (S.I., 2003, No. 1418) be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Gillian Merron.]

  NORTHERN IRELAND GRAND COMMITTEE
  Ordered,
  That—

  (1) the draft Budget (No. 2) (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 be referred to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee;

  (2) the Committee shall meet at Westminster on Thursday 3rd July at half-past Two o'clock; and

  (3) at that sitting—

  (a) the Committee shall take questions under Standing Order No. 110 (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (questions for oral answer)), and shall then consider the instrument referred to it under paragraph (1) above; and

  (b) at the conclusion of these proceedings, a motion for the adjournment of the Committee may be made by a Minister of the Crown, pursuant to paragraph (5) of Standing Order No. 116 (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (sittings)).—[Gillian Merron.]

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. I 18(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

  COMPANIES
  That the draft Uncertiticated Securities (Amendment) (Eligible Debt Securities) Regulations 2003, which were laid before this House on 6th May, be approved.—[Gillian Merron]
  Question agreed to.

PETITIONS

  Pagham Post Office
  6.2 pm
  Mr. Nick Gibb: I have the pleasure of presenting a petition signed by 1,424 residents of Pagham in my constituency against the proposed closure of Pagham post office. The signatures were collected by Pauline and David Bailey, by Jean Morgan and by Mrs. J. Bright in just a few days and represent about one third of Pagham's population.

  595
  The petition states
  The petitioners therefore request the House of Commons to urge the Government and Post Office Limited to maintain the post office presence in Pagham either at the existing outlet or within one of the other shops on the Parade at Pagham.
  And the petitioners remain, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Pharmacies
  6.3 pm
  Roger Casale: I beg leave to present a petition on behalf of 1,683 residents of Wimbledon that has been collected by Mr. Paresh Modasia. Signatures were collected at local pharmacies, including the Hilton pharmacy, D.E. Davies pharmacy, Ridgway pharmacy, Mount Elgon pharmacy, Barkers chemists, Seamens chemists, Haydons pharmacy, D. Parry pharmacy and Chemco pharmacy. The petition declares
  The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to reject proposals that would allow unrestricted opening of pharmacies able to dispense NHS prescriptions.
  And the Petitioners remain etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

Mr. William Wright
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Gillian Merron.]
6.5 pm
Mr. Peter Robinson: I am exceedingly grateful for the opportunity to raise the important matter of the need for an investigation into the death of Mr. William Wright. Before paramilitary prisoners were released under the provisions of the Belfast agreement, it was a regular feature in the lives of Northern Ireland Members of Parliament to respond to requests from paramilitary prisoners to visit them in prison. Few months went past without a visit to Crumlin road, Maghaberry, Magilligan or the Maze prisons. Those visits usually resulted in requests to deal with prison conditions or the particulars of a prisoner's sentence or, at times, to help their families.
In March 1997, my office received a request for me to visit Billy Wright in Maghaberry. The visit was arranged for, and took place on, Tuesday 18 March at 2.30 pm. Billy Wright was the leader of the paramilitary group the Loyalist Volunteer Force, and was serving an eight-year sentence for threatening the life of a woman. My intention, however, is to speak not of the life of Billy Wright, but of his death and the circumstances surrounding it. His father and family are entitled to know the truth.
During my visit, Billy Wright informed me of his concern about the arrangements under which he was being held at Maghaberry prison. He said that he was locked in his cell 23 hours a day without the association granted to other prisoners, and that he believed his life to be in considerable danger from republicans in the prison. Indeed, the alleged reason for the 23-hour lock-up was the prison authorities' concern for his safety. He wanted to move to the Maze prison, where he could be placed on a wing with other LVF prisoners. He indicated that if such a move were not granted by 1 May, he would go on hunger strike. The timing would be such that his death would coincide with the Drumcree period. I have abbreviated the details of my visit because of the time constraint, but the message was clear and disquieting.
On the following evening, my hon. Friend the Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley) and I sought out and met, within the precincts of the House, the then Minister with responsibility for prisons, Sir John Wheeler, and outlined our concerns. We told Sir John, whom I regard as one of the most genuine and sincere Ministers that we have had in Northern Ireland, of the consequences of Billy Wright's being killed or dying in prison, and urged that even to avoid years of 23-hour lock-up, a move would be sensible. To what extent our approach influenced the then Minister's decision I do not know; for I hope that others, particularly the governor of Maghaberry prison, were also conveying the view that a move was wise. However, Billy Wright was later moved from Maghaberry to the Maze—before 1 May—and placed in a wing in H-block 6 with other LVF prisoners. Incredibly, however, the LVF wings were in the same block that housed Irish National Liberation Army prisoners. Neither group had declared a ceasefire.

597
Immediately on Wright's being moved to the Maze, an incident occurred at Maghaberry prison that had a direct link to the death of Billy Wright. Two INLA prisoners, Christopher McWilliams and John Kennaway, took part in a hostage-taking incident in which they used a smuggled weapon. I am now satisfied that McWilliams and Kennaway had intended to murder Wright in Maghaberry prison, but discovered too late that he had been moved to the Maze. Absurdly, the prison authorities decided to punish McWilliams and Kennaway by transferring them to the Maze—the prison to which Wright had been moved.
Some months later, on 27 December 1997, at 10 minutes past 10 in the morning, it was McWilliams, Kennaway and a third man, John Glennon, who murdered Billy Wright by pumping seven shots from a Hungarian PA63 semi-automatic weapon into him as he waited in a prison van in the forecourt of H-block 6 to be taken to the visitor's area for a scheduled visit. The three men who killed Wright made their way to him over the H-block roof and through a hole cut in the security fence. After the killing, the men made no attempt to escape, but simply returned to their wing and, with the intervention of a priest, gave themselves up to officers.
There is therefore no question about who killed Billy Wright. The three Irish National Liberation Army men were convicted of the murder on 20 October 1998 and their organisation claimed full responsibility for it. Yet many matters point to persons in authority in the state having accommodated that murder. The case demands answers.
I am not someone who reacts to each and every incident by calling for a public inquiry. I believe that such an approach devalues the currency of such a call. However, when, as in the case of Billy Wright, a man is shot and murdered in the highest security prison in Europe and today, six years on, so many questions remain unanswered, I believe that only a full public inquiry can settle the matter once and for all.
In August 2001, the Government announced that they would appoint a "judge of international standing" to undertake a thorough investigation of allegations of collusion in several cases, including that of Billy Wright. In May 2002, Judge Peter Cory was appointed and the decision on which cases warrant a public inquiry is awaited. However, the BBC "Spotlight" team investigated the circumstances of Wright's murder and doubted whether the INLA gunmen could have carried out their attack unaided. Very serious questions were posed, but they received no satisfactory answers.
The questions centre on how the INLA gunmen were able to leave their wing and cross the roof of the H-block undetected by prison staff. Why was a security camera covering the murderers' route not working on the day of the murder? Why was a list containing the names of Loyalist Volunteer Force prisoners expecting visits on the day of Wright's murder shown the previous evening to INLA prisoners, thereby alerting them to Wright's movements? How were the two guns used in the killing of Mr. Wright brought into the Maze prison? Why, given the history of McWilliams and Kennaway in smuggling guns into Maghaberry prison, were stricter measures not in place to monitor their activity? Why was a prison officer manning a watchtower twice ordered to leave his post—in contravention of prison standing orders—just before the murder? Why was the advance
598
cutting of the fence not detected? There are numerous other unanswered questions, but time does not permit such a recitation. It is worth adding that remarks made by one of the killers adds weight to the call for a proper investigation. On "Newsnight" on 24 November 2000, Christopher McWilliams said:
"Obviously they turned a blind eye. They were warned on numerous occasions that there was a possibility of trouble outside and inside and they were warned many times."
Billy Wright's father, David, has been tireless and assiduous in his quest to establish the truth of what happened to his son. On several occasions he has gone to the High Court in Northern Ireland to get answers to his questions. Support for the holding of an inquiry has also come from the Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, which was set up, among other things, to advise the Government. In this case, however, the Government seem unwilling to accept their advice.
Recently, Mr. David Wright sought to have access to the police file on the murder of his son. To advance his goal, he sought a judicial review, which was heard by Mr. Justice Kerr. Although he determined that it was not an automatic requirement of article 2 of the European convention on human rights that Mr. Wright be entitled to the police file at that time, he lucidly articulated another stunning and considered conclusion that he had reached. Having reviewed the police file, he was being asked to make it available to the murdered man's father. Having taken account of other so-called investigations, the judge concluded:
"I am satisfied that an Article 2 compliant investigation into the death of Mr Wright has not yet taken place. Such an investigation would have to address directly such issues (among others) as … how the murderers were able to penetrate the forecourt area unobserved; how they were able to obtain the materials to manufacture the weapons used; how they knew that Mr Wright would be in the prison van at the time the murder took place and whether there was any evidence of collusion on the part of members of prison staff None of the inquiries so far held has provided a satisfactory answer to these questions. The obligation to conduct an effective investigation into the death of Mr Wright is a continuing one. The applicant, as the next of kin of Mr Wright, enjoys a current right under Article 2 of ECHR to an effective investigation of his son's death."
In my role as a Member of Parliament, what appear to be photocopies of the contents of the very police file that the courts refused to make available to Mr. David Wright have come into my possession. They were sent to me anonymously and the contents strengthen the call for a full public inquiry. They give rise to a number of serious questions about the authorities' failure to heed any one of a number of warnings from various prison staff before the murder of Mr. Wright.
The file shows that in the months leading up to the murder, prison governors were personally, and in correspondence, warned about security at H-block 6. They were warned about the danger of an attack and about how the attack would take place and they were even given the names of the prisoners who would be involved. The file also shows that prisoners, some of whom were subsequently involved in the murder, were reported examining the fence and determining how to get through it. The governors were told of concerns about camera coverage, about the dropping of the guard

599
at watchtowers and over arrangements relating to visits. All of those concerns were ignored and the officers were left with the impression that their warnings had been a waste of time and that no corrective measures would be taken.
The file contains details of statements showing that Ministers had been acquainted with prison officers' concerns about security at the prison. On 21 January 1998, the then Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, responding to remarks from my hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Donaldson), stated that since May 1997— when the Government came to power—
"the Government have put in place a progressive programme of tightened security measures, including twice daily head counts; cell fabric checks; a comprehensive search of cells and the blocks … and the scanning of all visitors along with other … measures, with more to come."
He continued:
"It is not the case, as the hon. Gentleman maintains, that security has been relaxed since May. The opposite is true, as the measures I have described prove."—[Ofcial Report, 21 January 1998; Vol. 304, c. 985.]
The Minister's claims are at total variance with the contents of the police file. The measures outlined by the Minister were not in place.
The file details how prison staff watched for days as specified INLA prisoners used the painting of a mural on one of their wings near the circle area—the area that joins the four wings of the H-block—to observe the activity of prisoners in the two LVF wings. The experienced officers were able to identify the intended target and the INLA prisoners involved. They were even able to advise the governor how the attack was to be carried out. No responsible governor would have ignored those warnings. Whom did the governor consult about that information? Given the high political sensitivity of the intended attack, did he contact the Northern Ireland Office? Did officials there inform the Minister? We do not know, because—bizarre though it seems—according to the file, those matters were not investigated.
This is a case in which a murder took place that the INLA prisoners had been openly threatening, and was therefore predictable. But more than that, we now know that it was predicted in precise detail, and in good time for action to be taken. It could therefore clearly have been prevented. It must be established why it was not. Who took the decision to do nothing? Who took the decision to allow Billy Wright to be murdered?
Having reviewed the police file, I firmly concur with the remarks made by Mr. Justice Kerr in his judicial review ruling. He said that a proper investigation into the death of Billy Wright
"has not yet taken place."
Perhaps more germane is his observation:
"The obligation to conduct an effective investigation into the death of Mr. Wright is a continuing one."
600
Mr. Justice Kerr's conclusion was that Mr. David Wright
"enjoys a current right under Article 2 of ECHR to an effective investigation of his son's death."
I am concerned that the Government are actively attempting to conceal the full details of this murder. The Government's Narey investigation was patently a face-saving farce. Under pressure to have an inquiry, the Government sought to suggest that the matter could be investigated by Mr. Martin Narey. Judge Kerr's comments dismiss that investigation as not being compliant with article 2 of the European convention. Indeed, Martin Narey himself, when he reported, never claimed that his investigation into the Wright killing was thorough. Instead, he said that his interest was confined to the background of the shooting, and the general issues that it raised.
It has to be said that, even at that stage, the cover-up had begun. Narey was unable to interview 26 prison officers, all of whom were conveniently absent from work through illness and therefore could not be interviewed. The police file includes a memo from a detective chief inspector stating:
"During interview, some prison officers have expressed concern that complaints made to senior officers seem to have fallen on deaf ears. It was agreed that no prison officers' statements would be made available to anyone other than police."
What does that intention to conceal mean? Is it in line with the fact that these matters never came out at the subsequent court case for McWilliams, Kennaway and Glennon? Were crucial witnesses absent from the inquest for the same reason?
The level of negligence in the prison leading up to the murder of Billy Wright can be explained only by way of deliberate intention. Why was no action taken when clear warnings were given? Why has there been a complete failure adequately to explain or justify those failures to act? The conviction of Billy Wright's murderers should have marked not the end of the investigation but merely the beginning of the next phase. In his evidence to the judicial review hearing, the Chief Constable submitted that the investigation of the death of Mr. Wright was treated as closed on the conviction of those responsible for his murder.
The failure to provide answers to these critical questions, in addition to the numerous questions that have been raised over the past number of years, makes a full public inquiry vital to ensure public confidence. I believe that the police file's contents raise very serious questions about how the matter has been dealt with, and require that a full public inquiry be held.
We do not need to wait for the outcome of Judge Cory's investigation. The Government themselves should fulfil their ECHR responsibility, as instructed by the court. Avoiding a full inquiry is not an option; delay suggests that the Government have something to hide. Evidence that suggests that officers of the state either turned a blind eye to the murder of Billy Wright, or— worse—were actively involved in facilitating it, cannot be ignored. There are many questions that demand answers. Only a fully independent inquiry can provide them.
The Government should not kick for touch by suggesting that the Cory investigation can decide whether an inquiry is needed. Obviously, a

601
recommendation by Cory to hold an inquiry would resolve the matter but a recommendation by Cory not to have an inquiry would not remove from the Government the obligation—of which Mr. Justice Kerr has reminded them—to carry out an investigation compliant with article 2 of the ECHR. The Government have been ducking and weaving too long. It is time for them to act.
6.24 pm
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Jane Kennedy): I congratulate the hon. Member for Belfast, East (Mr. Robinson) on securing the Adjournment debate. Before I respond to some of his specific points, I take this opportunity to express regret on behalf of the Government at the death in custody of Billy Wright. I acknowledge that the murder is most sorely felt by his immediate family, including his father David. However, it would be remiss of me not to draw Members' attention to the very real dangers posed by serious terrorist offenders down the years. Those dangers contributed significantly to the difficult nature of the segregated regime at the Maze prison. That regime enabled prisoners, including, it must be said, Billy Wright, to enjoy a level of control within the regime at the Maze that put significant pressure on both management and staff. Many prison officers and prisoners paid the ultimate price for that, and that is why we continued to resist pressures for segregated conditions.
Before I turn to the murder itself in the very brief time left available to me, I should respond to the comments that the hon. Gentleman has made. He referred to comments made by my predecessor and quoted from Hansard. He is the best judge of his own conduct in bringing such a matter, particularly the confidential file, to such a public arena. I have not seen that file, and I therefore cannot respond in any detail. It occurs to me to wonder whether, had the hon. Gentleman been serious about wishing to get to the bottom of the matter—in his terms—and to examine the issues in detail, he might have sought to consult me, as the relevant Minister, and prison officials. If he had, we could have examined the points that he has made in some detail and sought to give a proper and reasoned response to the allegations that he has made. I am not aware of any such approach having been made to my office, and hon. Members may draw their own conclusions on why he has chosen to raise this matter in this way. The fact of his having possession of such a confidential file is, in itself, something on which I shall have to reflect when I read Hansard after this debate.
The hon. Gentleman pointed to several factors that he interpreted as meaning collusion. I have only three minutes in which to do it, but I shall consider just one or two of them in detail. Whether he likes it or not, I will rest on the Narey report. He has dismissed that report out of hand, but I do not believe that it should be dismissed. It is a serious report.
Mr. Robinson: Will the Minister give way?
Jane Kennedy: The hon. Gentleman left me only 10 minutes to reply, not three minutes as I said earlier. He raised a number of serious issues, and it is important that I should use my time to respond.
602
The Narey report concluded that
"the decision to co-locate the two factions"
at the Maze prison
"was not an unreasonable one for the Governor to make. The decision was taken only after the most serious consideration of its implications. It is important to stress that prisoners were in the same block but on completely discrete wings, separated by six steel gates."
The House may be interested to know that no other accommodation was available at the Maze at that time. It already housed four other factions in seven H-blocks, and one H-block was always kept empty for a rolling refurbishment programme. It should be remembered that Billy Wright requested to go to the Maze in the full knowledge that he would have to be housed with INLA prisoners, since that was the only available accommodation. In addition, as the hon. Gentleman said, he threatened a hunger strike, which would have culminated around the Drumcree protests in July, until his request was met.
Following the hostage-taking incident at Maghaberry, preventing the prisoners and staff who had witnessed that incident from discussing it in any way was a priority, as there was a strong possibility of witnesses being called to any subsequent trial. Given the number of witnesses, the simplest way of achieving that was to remove the prisoners to the INLA wing at the Maze. Magilligan was an option not open to the prison service, as it was, and remains, a medium to low-risk security prison.
Narey's report found that the area of fence from which the hole was cut was out of range of CCTV cameras covering the exercise yard. The prison authorities were aware that one camera was malfunctioning. The hon. Gentleman will know that that camera was maintained by an outside contractor, who had been informed that it was in need of repair. It must be remembered that there were in excess of 200 cameras around the Maze prison at that time. Inevitably, there would be periods when one or more were malfunctioning. The Narey report addressed this issue and others about the insecurity of the roof area, for example, in the following way:
"it must be recognised that in a prison like the Maze the Governor is inundated with warnings, rumour and anecdote."—
Mr. Robinson: Will the Minister give way?
Jane Kennedy: No, because in a half-hour Adjournment debate I have limited time, and the hon. Gentleman took a significant time to present his case. [Interruption.] He may shout if he wishes to, but that just limits my ability to respond. The report continued:
"He cannot react to all of them because to do so would prevent the running of the prison: prisoners would never he able to leave their wings. And the observation that Mr Wright was in danger was already appreciated by him. The Governor recognised the risk and attempted to manage the risk",
but in the event the attempt failed. That is the matter of regret that the Government acknowledge.
Narey was unable to establish how the firearms used entered the prison. Rigorous search procedures were in place that self-evidently failed. As with all security matters, a balance has to be struck between the security of the prison, prisoners and staff and their rights and

603
dignity. It is impossible to stop all smuggling into prison without the use of closed visits, where prisoners do not come into contact with their visitors, and draconian search procedures, which would need to include intimate searching.
Narey also made recommendations aimed at preserving the integrity of security fences that were introduced immediately. The report states that the fence is observable from the watchtower. However, it is only the general area that can be observed. It is impossible to detect any interference with the fence itself from the tower, and prisoners had access to that area.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the prison officers in the watchtower overlooking the prison roof. Narey concluded:
"In our view, whether or not the tower was manned, Mr Wright would still have been shot. Even if the tower officer had raised the alarm immediately, only one member of staff could have gained access to the forecourt, and had he intervened to protect Mr Wright, it is likely that he too would have been shot. Moreover the fact that the alleged perpetrators made no attempt to disguise themselves indicates that potential detection or identification was of little concern to them."
The hon. Gentleman made one or two other points that I do not have time to address.
604
I turn now to the issue of inquiries and the campaign supported by the hon. Gentleman for a public inquiry. It is the Government's view that the death has been adequately investigated. Three men have been convicted for the murder as a result of the police investigation. The findings of the coroner's court concurred with that outcome.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the judicial review. The judgment of Mr. Justice Kerr was against releasing the police file that the hon. Gentleman has used this evening. However, the judge commented that none of the inquiries in his view held so far have satisfactorily answered a number of aspects, and the hon. Gentleman listed those aspects. The judge also said that he would reconsider whether he would reveal the contents of the police investigation once Justice Cory had decided what further action was required.
The Narey report concluded that while the death was regrettable, there was no evidence that manning of watchtowers, cameras working and so on would have made any difference to the execution of the crime. The Government take allegations of collusion seriously. The points—
The motion having been made after Six o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at twenty-six minutes to Seven o'clock.

Preamble
[MR. JOE BENTON in the Chair]

Affordable Housing
[Relevant documents: Affordable Housing—Third Report from the Committee on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, Planning, Local Government and the Regions, Session 2002–03, HC75-I, and the Government response thereto, Cm 5783.]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Paul Clark.]
2.30 pm
Mr. Joe Benton (in the Chair): Before I call the first speaker, let me say that many hon. Members wish to speak and I should like to include all of them. We shall need some 40 minutes for winding-up speeches, so I appeal to all speakers to be as brief as possible so that we can get everybody in.
Andrew Bennett: I welcome the new Minister for Housing and Planning to his place on the Front Bench. I was glad to learn of his appointment. Having had two Ministers with responsibility for housing and planning in the House of Lords, it is nice to have one based in the House of Commons. I hope that my hon. Friend will last longer in the job than the previous two incumbents, and that this afternoon's debate will prove useful to him. Given the crisis in affordable housing, I wondered whether it might have been better if he had gone out and dug some foundations or laid a few bricks, but I welcome him none the less.
I put on record my thanks to all who helped the Select Committee with our report: the Clerks to the Committee, the advisers and all the people who sent in evidence and allowed us to question them. They all helped us to produce what I believe is a good report, based on the evidence that we received.
I pay tribute to one of the members of the Committee as it was 12 months ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King), who chivvied us into carrying out the inquiry. Throughout the spring of last year, we considered empty homes, going to places such as Bootle and finding out about the problems in the north of England. My hon. Friend made the point very vigorously that both overcrowding and empty homes were to be found in London, and she persuaded us to visit her constituency to see the problems in Tower Hamlets. During that visit, I saw in London far worse overcrowding than any that I have seen in the United Kingdom for many years. We were firmly pressed into examining the issues surrounding affordable housing. Unfortunately, the inquiry went on for a long time and my hon. Friend left the Committee before it was finished. However, I do not think that she will complain about the report.
When we looked into affordable housing, we learned that there is still far too much housing misery in this country and that we are nowhere near producing the number of houses that is needed. We also have to face
142WH
the fact that the more we encourage people to choose the schools and hospitals they use and tell them which are the best, the more likely it is that there will be an acute housing shortage in one area, but surplus houses in another a few miles away. It is important that we ensure that all our schools and hospitals are good enough for everybody, so that we do not create the idea that certain neighbourhoods are attractive and others less so.
Let me describe the scale of the problem. The evidence that the Select Committee received showed that we need 85,000 new affordable houses each year, but in 2000, only about 17,000 were built; by 2001, that figure had fallen to only 14,000, and it is now 13,000. We are miles away from providing affordable housing on the scale on which it is needed. We need a step change. The Government announced the sustainable communities plan, which was supposed to achieve that step change, but I understand that the Housing Corporation is talking about not getting anywhere near to building 85,000 affordable homes a year for the next couple of years; if we are lucky, we might get some way towards 30,000. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will say what progress is being made on achieving that step change.
The sustainable communities plan identified sites where there was to be a certain amount of affordable housing. Then, there was to be extra affordable housing. When we considered the plan in a recent report, we were rather alarmed to find that the Government did not seem to have identified the problems on each of those sites. I hope that the Minister will take one of the sites, whether Milton Keynes or Ashford, and say what the critical problems will be and what the Government are doing to overcome them.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to the Chairman of the Select Committee for giving way. His report was excellent and drew attention to a number of issues, not least the fact that resources for the Housing Corporation are exactly the same now as they were in 1995, yet the Government have withdrawn £400 million of local authority social housing grant. Surely the situation will be worse than the hon. Gentleman predicts: we will struggle to maintain the existing scale of housebuilding, let alone increase it.
Andrew Bennett: That is obviously the Opposition's view. I would have been happier with that intervention had the hon. Gentleman said that a future Conservative Government would be committed to coming up with much more public expenditure, but I get the impression that there is a certain reluctance among the Opposition to make such a commitment. Before we go too far into yah-boo politics, perhaps we should ensure that a future Conservative Government would make money available.
Mr. Edward Davey: Let me see whether I can intervene in a spirit that is not yah-boo. Does the hon. Gentleman agree with the Local Government Association cross-party proposal that the Government should defer the abolition of local authority social housing grant, because its abolition is preventing the building of affordable homes that are

143WH
already in the pipeline and that could be provided in the next two or three years? Will he call on the Minister to delay that abolition?
Andrew Bennett: The hon. Gentleman has made the point; the Minister will obviously have listened to it. I simply emphasise that we need to put in place a road map, to use a not a very helpful expression, so that we can go through the sites and see what is holding things up—whether it is the water supply, gas, electricity or road or rail links—and how long the planning will take. That would enable us to see the way forward. I have a suspicion—the Select Committee will consider the matter fairly soon—that the Government have not been spending the money that they persuaded my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to put to one side. The first problem is to ensure that the money that is already allocated is spent. Then, we need to get more resources into these areas.
We must also ensure that the resources are better spent, because a huge amount of evidence shows that the building industry is not serving the nation well. There is much more scope for new types of building and especially for greater use of prefabrication. I know that people sneer at the idea of prefabs, but there are possibilities in ensuring that more building is done on a factory site. That means that, say, the kitchen arrives completely fitted out, is slotted in and perhaps has bricks put round the outside of it. We must consider concepts such as the skyhouse, which people are talking about for the Thames gateway. When the Committee considered tall buildings, we were not totally convinced that it was necessary to build up in order to get a huge amount of extra office or housing space. That could be provided by groundscrapers, but we should at least consider whether a building like Canary Wharf could provide a large amount of housing.
We should also consider the serious point that affordable housing means higher densities, so we will have to look at the cost of providing community facilities in such areas. It is fashionable for people to sneer at and criticise much of the housebuilding done in the 60s and early 70s and to say that it did not last. Some of it did not last because of poor architecture, but in the vast majority of cases, the problem was that money was not available for maintenance. If we are to have high-density housing, the Government must consider how it will be maintained. In the centre of Manchester, for example, there has been a huge building renaissance, but much of what has been built is for middle-class people and therefore not affordable. The people who live in those areas pay service charges that are two or three times higher than their council tax. Anyone whose income is well above average can afford to pay such services charges, but we must take into account the fact that sufficient money is needed to look after communal areas in affordable housing properly.
I turn to the other issues in the report—I shall follow your injunction to be brief, Mr. Benton. There was a scandal in Tower Hamlets and other places where people were pushed into exercising the right to buy by speculators who lent them money. When the period in which they had to guarantee to remain in the house had elapsed, the people were squeezed out—some went back
144WH
on to the housing waiting list—and their dwellings were sold off at a considerable profit. The Government have made some progress in sorting out the problems of right to buy, but will the Minister, first, state the position in respect of implementing the restrictions on right to buy and whether they will apply across the country? Secondly, is he certain that local authorities are enforcing the regulations? I have not come across many examples of a council taking action when someone has exercised the right to buy and passed the property to someone else.
Mr. Kerry Pollard: My constituency has some of the highest property prices in the UK, yet the neighbouring constituency, Watford, where house prices are 10 per cent. lower than in mine, is included in the new right-to-buy regulations whereas mine is not. I urge the Minister to think carefully about that. The house prices in my constituency are the highest in the whole of the east of England by a considerable margin.
Andrew Bennett: That is not really an intervention for me but for the Minister, who is not jumping to his feet, but my answer to it would be yes.
We must look carefully at the right to buy. Although it should be restricted because the more the right to buy is exercised, the more supply of affordable housing declines, we must consider the rights of the people living in those properties. They should be able to participate in what owner-occupiers in most parts of the country—although not those in low-demand areas—take for granted: that the price of their house will go up and up and that they are therefore gaining a significant capital asset.
Ms Karen Buck: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Andrew Bennett: I will, but the more I give way, the fewer hon. Members will get the chance to speak.
Ms Buck: I wonder whether my hon. Friend will comment on the absurdity of local authorities re-leasing council flats that were sold under the right-to-buy programme and placing homeless families in those properties, where the rents are now £300 a week compared with the £60 or £70 a week that would be paid if the property was still being rented from the council?
Andrew Bennett: I am sure that the Minister is listening to these points. Knowing my hon. Friends, I am also sure that they will be knocking on his door and nobbling him in the Tea Room to drive those points home.
Not only do we need to sort something out about the right to buy, but we need to come up with schemes to allow people to own part of a house rather than all of it. The report stressed the fact that part ownership, part rental schemes have to be re-worked out for every development that comes along. I hope that we can quickly put more rules in place for such schemes.
The Committee also studied the way in which, when houses are built for sale, money can be made available to come up with a certain proportion of affordable housing as part of an agreement under section 106 of the

145WH
Town and Country Planning Act 1990, as substituted by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991. Again, the Government really must get their act together and sort something out on section 106 agreements. They had the idea of introducing a tariff to make it clear how much money would have to be paid over for every development: one could then tell whether money was to go towards new road access, new schools and other facilities, or towards affordable housing. However, the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill has been delayed, so we need new rules on section 106 agreements to be put in place so that a developer who goes for a piece of land will know what he will have to pay as part of a section 106 agreement and will be able to take that into account when he negotiates the price of the land with the owner. Most developers' profit margins cannot be squeezed much more, but there is one flexible element—the price the land is sold for in the first place. We therefore need information about section 106 agreements.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I hope that this will be the last time that I intervene on the hon. Gentleman. Does he agree that uncertainty about when the Government will make their announcements about section 106 and circular 6/98, combined with PPG3 obligations on social housing, is one of the biggest factors preventing developers from bringing on stream a large number of new houses?
Andrew Bennett: Again, I am sure the Minister has been listening. Of course, he has been in his post for only a week; perhaps we should give him a fortnight to get things sorted out. However, I agree that we need to get on with things, and I hope that he can give us at least some indication of the progress that has been made.
My final point is that as a nation we must consider the stupidity of having an acute housing shortage in the south of England and in some other regions while many homes elsewhere in the country are empty. We must do much more to match up the two. If you look around your constituency of Bootle, Mr. Benton, you will see houses that are almost impossible to sell, yet if they were in the south-east or in parts of London, they would sell for £250,000 or more.
Mr. Andrew Love: With great respect, I have nothing in principle against a firmer regional policy—indeed, I support some of the comments in the report—but if one looks at the figures for the housing that is available in the north and the south, one cannot escape the conclusion that there must be a major housebuilding programme in the south of England.
Andrew Bennett: I am not disputing that, but persuading people to move into some of those empty houses would contribute to solving the problem. It is not just that houses are empty but that they are matched by school places, by facilities at the local hospital and health centre, and by many other facilities. If houses are empty and underused, all those other facilities are underused, too, whereas if we build extra houses in the south-east to meet demand there, we also have to build all the extra facilities to make those communities sustainable. I therefore press the Minister to ensure that part of the Government's strategy is to find ways of making moving attractive.
146WH
Part of that effort must be an attempt to persuade central Government, local authorities, schools, hospitals and others to move some of the jobs that are not dependent on being based in the south-east. We must also examine ways of persuading pensioners to move from the south-east to the regions. Some pensioners would have the opportunity to sell their house in the south-east and buy a house for a quarter or less of that price in the regions, and thus to provide themselves them with a very considerable capital asset. It must also be possible to persuade many people whose children are not dependent on one particular community to move. All the evidence shows that people over the age of 40 rarely move house, so we might need to create conditions in which they can feel that they can move. Perhaps they could sample a move to some of the northern cities, which they might find far more attractive than the overcrowded south-east, and they might be happy to stay with an insurance policy that they would be able to go back.
I ask the Government and the Minister how we are going achieve a step change in the number of affordable houses being built across the country. How are we going to get the sites that have been identified in the sustainable communities plan up and running? That has to happen rapidly so that we do not end up like the 1950 Labour Government who got everything in place, only for the following Conservative Government to get the credit for building the houses even though the previous Administration had done all the work.
Let us get houses built quickly. Let us examine the right to buy. Let us make sure that people who cannot afford to buy a house outright can get access to simple schemes for part ownership of a property. Finally, let us think how we can persuade more people to move away from the overcrowded south-east to some of the other very attractive parts of the country.
2.51 pm
Mr. Paul Tyler: I am delighted to follow the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett). I will comment on several of the points that he made, but first I thank the Minister for his presence this afternoon. I hope that after seven days in the job, he is fully aware of all the issues that will be brought before him. We recognise that in his previous main roles, he has taken great interest in these matters, albeit with a particular focus on London. Now, I ask him to take a less metropolitan and more nationwide approach.
I declare a past interest in that I have at various points in my non-political career advised the Royal Institute of British Architects, Shelter, the House Builders Federation and the Campaign to Protect Rural England on housing policy. I have something of a track record on this matter.
There are many issues on which I agree with the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish. However, I wish to address a particular constituency-based interest of mine, namely, affordable housing in rural areas of Britain, particularly the south-west. I agree with the hon. Gentleman about the shortfall in delivery—that phrase sums up this Parliament. Delivery of affordable housing is woefully short of expectations: 13,000 units a year built when 80,000 units are needed each year is certainly unsatisfactory.

147WH
I entirely agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) about the need, at least in the immediate future, to delay the abolition of the local authority social housing grant. I hope that everybody taking part in the debate will, on an all-party basis, endorse the request by the Local Government Association that that should not happen.
The biggest mistake in right to buy was that it was a central Government decision-making process. It should always have been left to local representatives, whatever their political perspective, to decide where it was appropriate.
Ms Buck: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that in the London borough of Westminster, an aggressive version of the right-to-buy policy was the bedrock of Dame Shirley Porter's policy? If local autonomy were allowed to prevail, we could end up with that sort of abuse, which ended up with £30 million being owed to the people of Westminster.
Mr. Tyler: I must declare an interest. Although I entirely agree with the hon. Lady that distortions can occur, my daughter lives in a flat that was once a Westminster city council flat—and a very nice flat it is. I therefore benefit indirectly.
The hon. Lady is right—we must have a national scheme; but such a scheme should contain an element of local determination, not least because councillors can be held to account for the way in which it is implemented. We all know that the local electorate wanted Lady Porter and her evil works gone. She was eventually removed, but unfortunately some issues are still outstanding.
The Chairman of the Select Committee raised the important subject of shared ownership. Housing associations tell me that they get twice as many homes for their money if they produce good quality, sustainable shared-ownership schemes. The hon. Gentleman is right: it is absurd that we should continue to reinvent the wheel, area by area and housing association by housing association.
With your remarks about brevity in mind, Mr. Benton, I shall concentrate on the south-west. I refer to the extremely important work done in parallel with the Committee and the Government's response by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation in its excellent recent report, "Can work. Can't buy". If that describes any part of the country, it certainly applies to Cornwall.
Younger earners in their 20s and 30s find it harder to set foot on the home ownership ladder in the south-west than in any other English region outside London. Indeed, in some areas in the south-west the affordability gap is worse than in many parts of London. The study done by the foundation found that the asking price of modest houses in Purbeck, east Dorset and north Cornwall—my area—demands almost as big a share of the typical pay packet for local workers under the age of 40 as the highest priced homes in fashionable London boroughs such as Westminster, Camden and Islington. Affordability is not just a metropolitan problem. I hope that the Minister will visit us in Cornwall during the
148WH
summer recess to see for himself not only what a glorious place it is, but how serious the housing problems are.
A total of 15 districts in the south-west figure feature in the league tables as being among the 40 least affordable areas in England. Districts as varied as Salisbury, Gloucester, Penwith in Cornwall and Torridge in Devon are included in the list. The report was prepared by the university of York and it presented three affordability indices comparing younger workers' earnings with house prices in every borough and district for four or five-bedroom houses. [Interruption.] I should have said four or five-room houses—I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston and Surbiton for correcting me. The first index compared local house prices to income ratio. The second was an access-to-ownership index that calculated the percentage of working households under the age of 40 in each district whose pay was too low to purchase even the least expensive starter homes. The third was a key worker index that identified local authority areas where qualified nurses, teachers, social workers and police constables could not find affordable accommodation. I would add to that list people such as coastguards and Royal National Lifeboat Institution crews who, for obvious reason, have to be on emergency call in many of the smaller communities in the south-west. They do not have a hope of being able to afford homes of their own.
An analysis of the indices showed that across the south-west small starter homes cost more than four times the average annual income for local working households with earners in their 20s and 30s. The national average is less three and a half times the average annual income. That is a major discrepancy. In 16 south-west districts, the house price to income ratio for younger workers exceeds the average for London—I have already mentioned some of them. The only south-west district with a house price to income ratio below the average is north Somerset. Average prices for four and five-room houses are lower in the south-west than in the south-east, but the differential between average incomes of households with younger workers is even wider, ranging from £29,626 in the south-west to £38,478 in the south-east. I could continue, but others want to contribute to the debate.
Professor Wilcox of York university said:
"This analysis challenges any assumption that the housing affordability crisis is confined to London and the South East. When local incomes are part of the calculation, and we look at the price of starter homes, it is clear that young working people in many south-western districts, from Cornwall to Dorset, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire, face severe difficulties finding even a small home they can afford to buy."
He continues:
"Policy makers would be foolish to focus their attention solely on the higher house prices in the South East and ignore the way that affordability problems are spread across the South West as well."
Mr. David Drew: I totally concur with the hon. Gentleman, but there are two key points to make. First, one cannot isolate housing from other rural issues such as employment, transport and access to services. Secondly, a problem unique to rural areas is that they have relied a great deal on things like the exceptions policy in planning, which has broken down. No more

149WH
land is becoming available, which means that we cannot build in villages until we adopt a radically new approach and make it worth villages' while to take on new housing.
Mr. Tyler: I agree. The hon. Gentleman's Gloucestershire constituency strongly reflects the situation in the further south-west, which some call the wild west.
Several calamitous policies under successive Governments have allowed parts of the south-west to become a graveyard for local people's hopes of affordable housing. Not least among those calamities is the policy on second homes. We have a desperate problem with second homes, but despite their promise the Government have so far failed to do anything serious about second homes. I hope that they will fulfil their promise, and not only in relation to council tax. The sort of person who buys a second home in Gloucestershire or Cornwall will always have the resources to pay a 200, 300, 400 or even 500 per cent. rate of council tax. Some sort of responsibility should be placed on the local planning authority to decide when enough is enough and to make the transition of any property that has been in full use into the second home market a matter for planning consent. That is the only way in which the local community can take back control of the local situation.
I entirely agree with what the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish said about encouraging people from the south-east to spend the profits from their housing in the north, but to be frank, an awful lot of them have already spent in Cornwall the profits from the sale of their property in the south-east, and they have distorted the housing market disastrously. That has added to the calamity of second homes, because even houses that were bought under the right to buy have ended up in the market for second homes or retirement homes—in other words, as properties for people other than those for whom they were originally intended.
It is nonsense that the council tax advantage introduced by the Conservative Government continues, but what is worse is the ridiculous Conservative proposal that that the right to buy should be extended to housing association properties. That is absolutely crazy. The Conservatives must be out of their minds and totally out of touch with rural areas if they believe that that will be of any assistance to the people who are most in need of affordable housing. Throughout the south-west, such an extension of right to buy would be an unmitigated disaster.
For many years, through the work that I described and through the work with Shelter, I have been trying to help those who have no access to affordable housing in their own community. However, our local efforts to do something about the problem have been stymied by successive Governments who have failed to see that the south-west has a particular and sizeable problem. I welcome the work that the Select Committee has done. I hope that the Minister's response will be positive, and that the Committee and the Minister will seriously consider the work that has been done by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
3.3 pm
Ms Christine Russell: I, too, welcome the Minister to his new post. Without sounding too cheeky, I must say that I hope that he is more accessible than his predecessor to Members of this House. In other words, I hope that we can get him up against the wall in the Lobby and lobby him.
I welcome the opportunity to participate in the debate. My constituency probably has more in common with that of the previous speaker, the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler), than with that of the Chairman of the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett). Chester is a high-demand housing hotspot, but it is located in the north-west, which is a low—demand region.
The No. 1 concern of constituents who come to my surgeries is the lack of affordable housing in Chester—I suspect that I share such problems in common with many other hon. Members here. There is plenty of evidence that increasing numbers of people are being priced out of the housing market. For instance, the statistics show that a typical two-up, two-down Victorian terrace now sells for more than £100,000, which is far beyond the reach of first-time buyers. When we conducted an inquiry into empty homes, we visited your constituency, Mr. Benton, and a number of other constituencies in the north-west. We discovered there that £100,000 would buy a whole street of Victorian terraced houses—indeed, one could pop along to the local and pick up a house like that for perhaps a few hundred pounds, never mind a few thousand.
It is always useful to give our local statistics. The statistics from my constituency show that 3,327 applicants are on the waiting list. I do not wish to disagree with my Committee Chairman, because he is an excellent Chairman, but I would not want to encourage too many pensioners in need of social housing to move up north to my constituency because there are already nearly 1,000 pensioners on the housing waiting list.
Last year, 320 homeless families presented themselves at the housing trust. The right to buy has meant that housing stock in Chester is being lost faster than it is being replenished—other hon. Members have talked about similar problems. I certainly support the calls from my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Pollard) and I hope that the Minister will consider extending the discount reduction scheme to other housing hotspots.
We all welcome the Government's sustainable communities plan, which will, I think, put £5 billion into housing over the next few years. The main thrust of the sustainable communities plan for the north-west is rightly to address depopulation in big cities such as Liverpool and the problems of abandonment and lower demand in places such as east Manchester and Burnley. The Government's announced commitment is now to market renewal, which is welcome. However, I am concerned and should like assurances from the Minister that the Government recognise that the need for affordable housing does not follow the traditional north-south divide and that many parts of the north-west, such as Chester and South Lakeland, face problems similar to those that the south-east faces. The housing associations in my constituency are concerned

151WH
that the creation of the single regional pot for housing could result in local housing needs in places such as Chester being overlooked.
The increasing disparity between income and house prices in Chester, as in Cornwall, means that the public and private sectors are now starting to experience recruitment problems. In the case of Chester, key workers such as nurses have been forced to move over the border to north Wales, where property prices are so much lower. It is not much fun to come off a 12-hour shift and then have to face a long commute involving two or three buses to get home. I therefore call on the Government to consider extending the key worker initiative to parts of the country that face an acute shortage of affordable housing.
I support the outcry against the abolition of the local authority social housing grant. The loss of that grant will at best cause delay; at worst, it will result in the loss of hundreds of desperately needed affordable housing units—260 in my constituency. Will the Minister consider instructing the Housing Corporation to use some of its extra allocation from the sustainable communities plan on supporting the schemes that were in line for social housing grants, or to allow a 12-month extension for schemes where the local authority has already made the commitment and raised the expectations of local people? That view is shared by the LGA.
During its inquiry, the Committee heard a great deal of evidence to support the view that the contributions towards affordable housing secured through the planning system have so far been modest and that their potential is fairly limited. I checked with my local authority, which reckons that so far 111 affordable units have been provided. That is roughly 13 per cent. of new housing development in Chester.
Most hon. Members will know that the Government issued a circular in 1998, in which they said that 25 per cent. of all units in developments of more than 25 properties should be affordable housing. In historic cities such as Chester, many of the potential development sites are small and fall below that 25-unit threshold. That does not apply in rural areas, so in some ways those areas are better off, although I accept what my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) said about the lack of development sites.
In many cases, developers skew their applications deliberately to avoid the need to provide any affordable housing. Although the Government state that circular 6/98
"does not preclude developers from providing affordable housing on sites which are below the threshold"
and that the Government encourage them to do so, most developers have a very negative attitude towards that circular. I understand from discussions with the Minister's predecessor that the Department intends to update the circular. I would be interested to know when that will happen. Could the Minister give us some idea of the content of the new guidance to local authorities?
The current system of negotiation allows too many developers to provide affordable housing that meets their own requirements, but does not meet the needs of the community. There should be more scope for local
152WH
authorities to be prescriptive in their requirements for the type, cost and tenure of the new units. At present, the developer usually concludes his land deal before he enters into discussions with, or seeks advice from, the local authority. Frequently, that results in adversarial confrontation rather than good partnership working between the public and private sectors.
Finally, if we are serious about providing more affordable housing, we need to be far more co-ordinated across government. In my constituency there are vast tracts of land in public ownership and I am sure that that is also the case in the constituencies of many other hon. Members here today. In Chester, there are acres and acres of land that is surplus to the requirements of the Ministry of Defence, British Waterways and housing trusts. Network Rail also owns many acres of land suitable for housing. However, the biggest hurdle in the provision of affordable housing is astronomic land prices. If the Treasury could be persuaded to change its rules, so that public assets could be sold at less than market price for a proven social need, that could make a huge contribution towards the provision of affordable housing.
3.14 pm
Mr. Clive Betts: When the Committee examined the issue of affordable housing, we found that one major problem was the shortage of houses, particularly in the south-east. We found that despite the Government's excellent progress since 1997 in increasing investment in housing, their commitment to increase expenditure by 4.2 per cent. a year in this year and the next two years meant a shortfall of about £1 billion in the money needed to provide enough socially rented houses—about 20,000 extra houses. That is a major problem. Many of us want housing to be put higher up the political agenda and are pleased that the Government seem to be doing that now, but they will still have to return the question of resources.
As has been mentioned, we produced a further report on sustainable communities and recognised the need for additional homes to be built. However, coming from a northern constituency, one of my concerns, which I raised as part of that inquiry and will repeat today, is about the major investment in infrastructure that will be necessary to develop those four new communities in the south. Will the Minister reassure us that it will not be at the expense of infrastructure investment and regeneration areas in the north?
I can see the pressure on the number of houses, but there can be different housing markets in one city. For example, there is a demand for new houses to he built in the south of Sheffield, where my constituency is, and a problem of low-demand properties in north Sheffield. Therefore, it is important to note that it is not simply a question of numbers, but also of quality. There is no use in telling people that they can move into a £10,000 house down the road or a council property that has not been modernised in the 50 years of its existence. Those houses are affordable, as people can afford to pay the rent or take out a mortgage on it, but they are poor quality. Should people be aspiring only to that standard of housing in the 21st century? Quality, as well as affordability, must be addressed.
We welcome the Government's commitment to the housing market renewal fund. One of the pathfinder projects covers part of my constituency and again we

153WH
agree with how the Government have gone about their work. They have not been prescriptive and defined a specific funding scheme, telling us to jump through hoops to meet certain criteria before we get any money. They have said that money is available and that people should work out at a local level how to use it to tackle their problems, which is a welcome change in approach from many past initiatives.
I have two concerns, however. First, the £500 million is welcome, but it will only scratch the surface of the problem of sustaining affordable houses of a reasonable quality in the north of the country. The Government will have to commit more funds if we are to save some of the houses and ensure that people have reasonable housing in which to live.
Mr. Love: My hon. Friend will be aware of the 10-year target for bringing all existing affordable homes up to a decent standard. As yet, there is no target for the production of new affordable homes, so should he not be more worried about them, rather than existing homes, which are the subject of a clear target?
Mr. Betts: I am worried about numbers and have said already that more resources will be needed to build the 20,000 extra homes that the Committee thought were necessary. My hon. Friend is right that we would like the Government to make that their target, but I shall come to decent homes targets later.
To return to the housing market renewal fund, I have already said that we will need more resources once the pilot projects show how we can spend the money. My second worry is about the fact that those projects look at the worst properties in an area and consider their demolition. My concern is that they will not cover the nearly-the-worst properties, which, if we do not do anything about them now, will be in a similar condition to the current worst housing in 10 years. Communities that might slip into a poor state are being excluded from the pilot projects. I have had discussions with local officials about the Triangle estate in my constituency. I might well visit the Minister to discuss it in due course.
I accept that there is a decent homes target, but there is a problem with it and I asked the Deputy Prime Minister about that yesterday at Question Time. The Government accept that to achieve the target and to ensure that current affordable homes remain habitable they rely on three sources of funding: the traditional funding for local authority houses, the funding through arm's length management organisations and the private sector funding for stock transfers. The problem is that tenants in individual local authorities must decide who they want their landlord to be.
The Government's success in achieving the decent homes target seems at this stage to be reliant on tenants nationally voting in the proper proportions either to have their houses transferred to a housing association, to vote for an ALMO or to stay with a local authority. If tenants nationally do not divide into those various groups in the same ratio as the available funding, what happens to the decent homes target? That is a fundamental problem. We will carry out an inquiry into stock transfer and the target in the autumn. The target is not necessarily achievable unless the tenants vote in the right way—individually and collectively—to access the funding that has been made available in the discrete boxes that the Government are providing.
154WH
The Committee identified other issues in the report. We are looking forward with interest to reading the Government's new planning guidance. We are looking forward to seeing how we can disseminate good practice. There is a lot of good practice at local authority level in getting planning gain and using it to provide affordable houses. Some authorities are not successful and they can perhaps learn from the better authorities. We are keen to see whether the Government follow up their expression of interest in the Committee's suggestion that commercial developments could also provide some planning gain for affordable houses. When affordable houses are provided by planning gain, they should not be put up in one corner of the site with a brick wall around them where they are obviously inferior and not part of the wider community. That happens on occasion and we want the Government to issue guidance to ensure that it does not happen in future.
We have to be cautious. Planning gain will not fill the gap that exists between houses that have been built and those that are required. It will perhaps provide a small, marginal increase. At the same time, as more homes are built on brownfield sites, there will be less planning gain around to build the affordable homes that we need. That brings us back to where the Government can provide the extra resources to ensure that any target that they set—we hope that they will—is met.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for City of Chester (Ms Russell) that we should be looking at how public unused or underused land can be released, not necessarily at full market value but perhaps at a lower value recognising the importance of providing affordable homes. We should encourage the regional development agencies to be more proactive in using compulsory purchase orders where land is lying around in the private sector that could be used for that purpose. Indeed, the RDAs in general have a bigger role to play in housing. Yorkshire Forward opted out of housing altogether a couple of years ago, saying that it was not one of its priority areas. It has now changed its mind and has decided to come back into it.
The history of RDAs and English Partnerships getting involved in housing schemes has not always been happy. I have an excellent scheme in my constituency, the Attercliffe village project, which is a mixture of housing association properties and low-cost homes for purchase. It has had some subsidy from the RDA. From the initial idea to the first tenants and residents moving in took 10 years. Three of those years were spent arguing with English Partnerships and the RDA about the level of subsidy that they would give. We were not talking about fortunes, but about £10,000 a unit to get the development up and running. It will now hopefully be added to with some further developments.
If we are putting public money into encouraging such developments, particularly into low-cost homes for sale—there is some public sympathy for that—we must look at what happens down the line. Should the benefit of that subsidy go only to the first purchaser or should there be some conditions so that when they eventually sell on there is a reduction in the price so that others can benefit too? Otherwise, only the first owners or the first people who move into a shared ownership scheme will benefit. We have to sustain that public investment to help people. I welcome the Government's comments

155WH
about the right to buy and the action that they have taken. Some hon. Members have pointed out that the Minister might look again at how far he can go in designating new areas.
Finally, I must say a few words of caution. The Chairman of the Committee was right to say that if we are to move to higher-density housing, we must make sure that we get the design right. Too often in the past, we have put things together then wondered why, 20 years later, not merely the buildings but the communities have not worked. We must also consider maintenance costs. A few weeks ago, the Committee visited Greenwich. Although the new housing is attractive on first sight, I fear that there will be design and maintenance problems in 10 or 20 years. We have got so many things wrong in the past that I hope that Ministers will realise how important the matter is and will think about the sort of guidance that they can give.
I am still totally unconvinced about system-built housing. It might be a conservative instinct in me—one of the few such instincts I have—but I have too often heard Governments say that they know that there have been problems in the past, but that they think that they have now got it right. System-built housing is unproven in this country, and once it is built—
Mr. Pollard: In my constituency, we have 12 prefabs that were built to house people at the end of the second world war. They are still there and still lived in. Some years ago, when I was chair of housing, we decided to knock them down and the residents put a rope across the road to prevent me from gaining access to them, so proud were they of their houses. Purpose-built houses can have a place in our society, and modern methods of construction are excellent.
Mr. Betts: I do not often disagree with my hon. Friend; perhaps he is right about the prefabs and they are the exception that proves the rule. I would be worried indeed without at least some lengthy trial schemes, and a guarantee that people would be available to maintain such properties. Often, system-built housing goes up, then the firm goes out of business and nobody knows how to maintain it. That can be a problem. Instead of—possibly as well as—considering system-built housing, I would seek a major expansion in the training of craftsmen and women in the traditional skills of the building industry, so that we do not experience the shortages that force us to rely on system building because there is no labour available to build traditional homes.
I stress that the Government have done many things right. In my constituency, housing expenditure has gone up by more than half as much again since the general election and we have extra resources. However, the scale of the problems that we inherited and the disrepair and disinvestment of the previous 18 years mean that the Government have a major task in identifying the resources to deliver the affordable homes that the nation needs.
3.27 pm
Ms Karen Buck: I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members' Interests.
156WH
I congratulate the Committee on its important contribution to the debate and welcome my hon. Friend the Minister to his new brief. The Government have done some important things in the recent past, not least increasing spending through the comprehensive spending review 2002. The bed and breakfast target constitutes a major recognition of the problem in London, and it was right and brave to begin to grapple with right to buy, which has been a politically taboo subject for a long time and has thrown up a number of problems.
Despite that, we have to recognise that, for our constituents, housing is an issue of public service delivery as important as education, health and crime prevention, yet it has nothing like the degree of political salience. Until it has such clout—it will never enjoy the public or media attention that those other issues attract, not least because most journalists do not live in social or shared-ownership housing—the Government will have to attach more importance to it. We have to do that because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett) said, we face a crisis.
It is unfortunate that the word "crisis" is bandied around so much, because it should be used selectively. In London—I am going to be unashamedly, unapologetically and nakedly metropolitan—we have a housing crisis. If we do not tackle it, there will be serious consequences in the coming years. Spending has increased recently, which is welcome. However, house building is at an 80-year low and housing investment is still below the levels of a decade ago. The £1.4 billion spending plans for housing are likely to leave us between 37,000 and 50,000 units a year short. In other words, we are dealing with about 50 per cent. of housing need and making few inroads into the backlog.
I accept that there is both a chronic problem of low demand and pockets of acute housing shortage in rural areas and some high-value towns outside London, but in London we face such manifestations of the crisis as the fact that 60,000 households are in temporary accommodation—the highest number ever. Seventy per cent. of Britain's homelessness backlog is in London. The backlog of unmet housing need in London is estimated to involve 112,000 households. The census shows that London has the worst overcrowding in the country.
Different policies can be put in place to help to tackle those problems. One policy that has been adopted by some local authorities and that the Government are committed to rolling out was in the homelessness legislation: the extension of choice-based lettings. Camden council, a very high-demand central London authority, has adopted choice-based letting and found that that tool has enabled it to reduce its homelessness problem. However, even with choice-based letting, we still need massive additional housing investment to deal with the problem.
It is sometimes said that part of London's housing crisis is due to migration. We have to discuss that important issue and tackle it head on, because competition for the scarce resource of housing is the principal practical driver of racism in the capital. We must deal with that. The number of homelessness acceptances in London is lower than it was 10 years ago;

157WH
the problem is caused not by increased demand for housing, but by the fact that the supply of new lettings is falling, even with additional investment coming on stream. For every four lettings that were available to homeless families and tenants on the transfer list 10 years ago, we now have only three, and that trend is likely to continue for the foreseeable future.
Mr. Edward Davey: Is it not also a fact that the demand for housing in London is an innate demand from the population, because London has one of the youngest populations in the country? The higher demand is created by young households living in London and having babies, as well as by the lack of supply to which the hon. Lady referred.
Ms Buck: The hon. Gentleman is right that household formation is one driver of changed housing need, but the figure that I quoted reflects that. The problem is that, even allowing for household formation and migration to London as drivers of increased housing need, our problem is not housing need, but housing supply. We must address that.
We have talked, rightly, about some of the facts, statistics and policies, so I shall do what I often do in such debates and remind hon. Members of what those mean and the type of cases that we are addressing. I am sure that my hon. Friends from high-demand areas will be familiar with them. Mrs. Padbury says:
"I am single parent with 7 children aged between 9 months and 14 years … two of my children are disabled. I am living in a 3 bedroom flat. My 14 year old daughter and my 13 year old son share one room. In another room I have … two sons aged 9 and 8. In my room is myself and my 9 month old. In the sitting room is my two daughters. My children fight all the time … my oldest daughter has her GCSEs coming up",
but she is unable to study. The council's response is that only two four-bedroomed properties will be available to let on the transfer list this year. My constituent's position on the list implies that she will have to wait five years before she receives an offer.
Mr. Nutbourne shares a two-bedroomed home with his wife and five children. The council writes:
"Under the city council's bedroom standards, Mr Nutbourne's 2 sons and 2 daughters are expected to share one room".
They would be awarded additional overcrowding points only if one of them was over 17. In a third case, someone says:
"On April 30th, we had our third child … we are still in the same tiny 1 bed flat and there appears to be no progress whatsoever regarding a move either with the local council or Kensington Housing Trust. It makes me cry when I see other children living normally while mine are deprived of any proper living or sleeping space."
That is the reality for tens of thousands of households in London and in some other high-demand areas.
Another reality is that many of the families at the most acute end of the overcrowding problem are black and ethnic minority families. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's annual report on housing black and minority ethnic communities—my hon. Friend the Minister may be familiar with it—shows that 2 per cent. of white families report overcrowding compared with 23 per cent. of Pakistani and Bangladeshi families and 9 per cent. of black families; and 14 per cent. of white families
158WH
had poor housing conditions compared with 35 per cent. of Pakistani and Bangladeshi families and 23 per cent. of black families. As many as 35 per cent. of white families want to move, which seems bad enough until you compare it with the 52 per cent. of Bangladeshi families and 52 per cent. of black families who want to move. Although many white families are deeply embittered and feel that immigration is the cause of the housing pressures, the reality is that black and ethnic minority families are suffering the most acute housing problems.
I ask the Minister to reflect on the fact that the housing investment opportunities for social rented housing or for shared ownership housing do not have anything like enough scope to allow larger properties to be built. Four, five and six-bedroom properties are simply unavailable, and the grant process works makes it uneconomic for social landlords to build larger properties. Nothing is being done as a result. It is ironic that it is the most overcrowded and most desperately needy families of all colours who wait longest and for whom the least is being done. It is perhaps no surprise that many of those families have the lowest educational achievements and some of the worst health conditions; those factors are interlinked. I ask the Minister urgently to look into the issue of housing investment for larger properties.
We must build larger properties, to rent and to buy, in high-value areas. The Government are rightly committed to ensuring that we move away from having estates or even towns and cities that are predominantly poor and where people on low incomes predominate. We want to change that and we want to get mixed tenure right. However, the Government are not saying that we need to increase investment in some high-value areas—but if we do not increase investment in such areas in order to help low-income families buy or rent affordable property, where will they go? At the moment we are dealing with only one side of the equation—mixed tenure and mixed communities. We are failing to reflect the fact that those families exist and have to go somewhere. In the meantime, they are having to put up with acute or chronic overcrowding. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) for his work on statutory overcrowding. I welcome the fact that some hon. Members are working on the problem.
My last comments are a variation on the same theme—the necessity of recognising that low-income families have to be enabled to live in high-value areas. The Government are piloting a proposal for standard rent allowance in the private rented sector. That is reasonable, not least because many private tenants face significant shortfalls between what they pay in private rent and what they receive in housing benefit. The intention is to give people a standard allowance based on geographical area. As a result, households will know exactly what they can purchase in the open market; they can then negotiate rents with the private sector landlords. The pilot scheme is relatively new, and I hope that it is successful. However, in his Budget speech, the Chancellor of the Exchequer flagged up the fact that he was interested in rolling out a similar standard housing allowance into the social rented sector. I put it to the Minister that the consequences of such a policy in high-value, high-cost areas are likely to be serious. It will

159WH
polarise neighbourhoods, so that low-income families who have the least to spend will be driven to the cheapest properties.
Under the Government's policy of rent restructuring, there is a greater divergence of rents between high and low-value areas. New, good-quality properties will have higher rents; older, less modernised and slightly less attractive areas charge lower rents. If there were a standard housing allowance for a geographical area the size of a local authority, lots of people would either be priced out of good-quality accommodation, thereby concentrating low-income families in the poorest accommodation, or face a shortfall between their rent and housing benefit. According to research by the Association of London Government, 11 London boroughs said that the number of rents well above average—in other words, those that housing benefit would not fully fund—will rise as a result of rent restructuring. One borough has nearly one in five rents above average. That means that potentially one in five tenants will face a shortfall between their rent and the maximum amount of housing benefit that they can receive.
Mr. Edward Davey: Do we not already know that the policy would be disastrous from our experience of the experiment that the Government took over from the Conservatives of putting a cap on housing benefit in high-rent areas? I am sure that the hon. Lady has people coming to her constituency advice surgeries who cannot afford to pay private-sector rents. This policy would make that situation even worse.
Ms Buck: I am against the restriction on council tax benefits. That is a dangerous policy.
I end by saying that both in terms of housing investment and the standard rent allowance, we must be clear that if we want mixed communities, we have to have mixed communities everywhere. That means that we must be willing and able to inject the necessary investment to allow low-income families to live in high-value areas, where they are necessary for society and for the economy.
3.41 pm
Jane Griffiths: The Select Committee report is an extremely useful document. It is very important in that it pulls together the pressures facing affordable housing and what needs to be done to meet needs and demands. I congratulate the Committee members on their work. In my contribution, I would like to use the situation in my constituency to highlight some of issues discussed in the Committee's report, and the response thereto.
I will address the general situation in Reading, East, and in particular the situation of key workers. I would like to thank Debbie Ward at Reading borough council for her thoughts on the situation in Reading and for the information that she has provided. However, the use of that information and the arguments that I make are my responsibility alone.
At the end of March, Reading had six families in bed and breakfast, all of whom stayed less than six weeks. There were also seven single people in bed and
160WH
breakfast. As the bed-and-breakfast facilities that Reading uses are in Slough, the consequences are severe, especially for working people in poorly paid employment. They not only lose their home, but quite often cannot afford to stay in employment. Their children have to change schools, and they have to change them again in less than six weeks.
The price of Reading's relatively low use of bed and breakfast is that there are more than 250 people in temporary accommodation. Some 7,500 people are on the housing waiting list. About 1,000 people present as homeless each year and a duty to house them is accepted for 45 to 50 per cent. The council houses around 700 people a year, so it does not take a mathematical genius to work out that about 200 from the waiting list get housed each year.
Of the new development, 90 per cent. is brownfield, which means that it is expensive to develop. However, the council manages to build about 150 new homes a year. That is 1,000 homes short of what the council's housing needs strategy states need to be built each year. Things will be better in the coming 18 months as success with the challenge fund means that around 400 new homes will be built.
About 80 to 100 homes a year are lost through the right to buy, meaning that there is a net gain to the housing stock of 50 to 70 homes. We have yet to see what difference the recent reduction in the discount has had, but if all applications that came in before the change was made are completed, 200 homes would be lost this year. I am sure that that picture is replicated across the south-east. Most of the new units are gained through the planning system. The council has a target of 38 per cent. affordable housing in each development.
Having given that background, I will turn to the issue of key worker housing. I have spoken before of the difficulties that the high cost of housing causes public services in my constituency. Indeed, in 2000, I secured an Adjournment debate to discuss the problem. I was pleased that Reading subsequently received one of the best allocations under the key worker housing initiative, although I do not take personal credit for bringing that about as a result of my Adjournment debate—I am far too modest.
I was pleased that the then Minister visited Reading to talk to people who provided public services and to hear for herself what problems Reading faced. Welcome as the Government's assistance is, most of it is targeted at younger single people in smaller housing units. That is good for attracting people at an early stage of their public service careers, such as teachers or social workers who have just qualified. However, no attention has been paid to older people. People who have completed their training, have some experience and want to settle down to start a family face even greater problems with housing.
Last summer, I spent the recess accompanying people who provide public services in Reading and Woodley. I wanted to hear from them and to experience what their jobs involved. As a result, I have learned that Reading has become a training town. It is good at attracting people and training them but, once they are more mature and want to start a family, they find that they cannot afford to buy the house that they want and they

161WH
move elsewhere. The problem is experienced across the sector—from the ambulance service and the police to firefighters, bus drivers and others.
The extent of the problem is illustrated by the results of the council's housing survey, which was called "Living in Reading". It showed that three out of 10 households felt that they were likely to move in the next five years, and nearly half of those expected to leave Reading. Migration into and out of the town are roughly on a par, but the out-migrant households tend to be larger than the in-migrant ones.
The difficulties that the lack of experienced staff causes for the provision of public services are obvious. Solving that problem will be the next challenge for the Government as regards key workers—it will be a challenge for their public services agenda.
Let me explain the nature of the problem. A three-bedroom terraced house of the type to which someone with two young children might aspire costs about £160,000 in Reading. A mortgage of three or three and a half times earnings is therefore well out of the reach of a police officer who has finished training and done a couple of years' service. I apologise for neglecting to welcome my hon. Friend the Minister to his post at the start of my speech. I hope that he will tell us what plans there are to widen the starter homes initiative to the groups that I have described.
On page 4 of their response to the Select Committee report, the Government state:
"The Government agrees that numbers of affordable homes (in the sense of social homes or homes for low cost home ownership) have declined over the last two to three decades. A return to the huge social house-building programmes of the past would not be appropriate at a time when owner occupation is the tenure of choice for the majority of people."
They go on to talk about expanding private housebuilding and about reforming the planning system. They then refer to the short to medium-term need for major investment in homes to buy or rent at below market rates
"to address homelessness and to house essential key workers."
The implication is that they believe that homelessness and the need to house essential key workers will disappear in the medium to long term. If I understand it correctly, that shift is meant to result from a massive increase in private housebuilding and from the fact that home ownership is people's tenure of choice. However, there is certainly no evidence that it is happening in Reading.
The demand for affordable housing in Reading is deepening and widening. A report that is soon to be published shows that there is a significant housing shortage in Reading and that more than 50 per cent. of people cannot meet their housing needs. Home ownership is not even an option, which is not surprising given that the average salary is £26,000. A mortgage of two and a half or three and a half times salary makes even a bed-sit difficult to buy. Let us consider a family seeking a mortgage. Even when both partners earn the average wage, a house in Reading will be out of their reach.
That makes it all the more disappointing that the Thames valley was not included as a growth area in the sustainable communities plan. Reading is an affluent town with full employment, and a significant number of
162WH
people earn very good salaries. When I say that the United Kingdom headquarters of Microsoft and Oracle are in my constituency, and that several other large and prestigious IT firms are based there, people will see why Reading has become a leading-edge business location and why it attracts major businesses that operate in European and global markets. The rising demand for housing and intense competition on salaries among higher-value industries have produced steep house price inflation and high prices in real terms.
House prices have increased by 124 per cent. in the past five years, while earnings have increased by only 35 per cent. in the same period. So although some people are doing very well, a significant number are not. Not being in one of the sustainable communities plan growth areas means that affordable housing expenditure will grow only in line with the retail prices index. At the same time, construction costs have risen by 10 per cent. As I said, most building is on brownfield land, which is generally more expensive to build on. The concern is that fewer affordable homes will be built than the 100 a year that I mentioned. I repeat that that is 1,000 fewer than the council estimates need to be built to meet demand.
The housing situation in Reading is not rosy. Half the residents in my constituency cannot afford to meet their housing needs. It is not possible for a family on an average salary in my constituency to purchase even the smallest family home. There is a significant mismatch between the demand for affordable housing and the supply. Just one knock-on effect is that, increasingly, people with less and less experience provide our public services. For the people of Reading, East, the fear is that our community is becoming less sustainable.
3.51 pm
Ms Oona King: I congratulate my former colleagues who served on the Select Committee on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, Planning, Local Government on producing such a powerful and well argued report. In particular, I thank the Chairman, my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett), who put up with me pestering him on the subject for many months. I hope that he will not mind me saying that we were fairly obsessed: I was obsessed with the lack of affordable housing in and around my constituency; he was obsessed with the scourge of empty homes that have decimated so many communities around his constituency. During the Committee's consideration of these two issues, we learned that no one in the country has a monopoly on misery when it comes to the housing problems that we face today. Both problems must be urgently addressed.
Some of the report's recommendations are so good that they have already been acted on. Others have elicited a positive response, and there is a fair prospect of action. The rest will obviously take a little more time for Ministers to digest. I welcome the new Minister. I have very high hopes for him, and I thank him for the interest that he has always taken in housing. I hope that the debate will persuade him that action needs to be taken on some of the recommendations that have not yet been addressed. I have eight questions to ask him, and a couple from constituents whom I met this morning who are pleased that Parliament is debating the issue today.

163WH
First, I want to talk about the inquiry's key terms of reference, which were: the scale and location of the demand for affordable housing; the adequacy of the existing supply and the available resources; and the cost to individuals, businesses and the economy resulting from any shortfall in the provision of affordable housing.
On the scale of demand, the commonly accepted estimate is that about 70,000 to 75,000 homes are needed each year. The report includes research into the current backlog of housing need—that is, homeless households, temporary accommodation, the hidden homeless, people sleeping in hostels or in the homes of friends, and the overcrowded. That list is estimated to be almost 1 million strong. The needs of about a third of those households could be met from existing stock if properties and households were better matched. That leaves a backlog of about 650,000 households that have been let down by the failure in the past quarter of a century to build the houses that we need and to invest in new affordable housing.
Realistically, we can aim to reduce the backlog only by half in the next 20 years, which means adding the demand of about 16,000 households to the annual estimate of newly arising need. If all the figures that I mentioned are added up, the total number of new affordable houses needed is about 90,000 a year. Although the Committee does not make a recommendation on that point, its analysis and conclusions are clearly based on assumptions of housing need on that scale. Frankly, that is the best estimate that we have, so my first question for the Minister is whether the Government accept that estimate. If they do not, I hope that he can give a commitment to commission research into that crucial topic, so that we can all be better informed.
The next key issue is the adequacy of the existing supply of affordable housing and the money available to increase that supply. Given how big the backlog is, it goes without saying that the existing supply is totally inadequate—the 17,000 families on the housing waiting list in the borough of Tower Hamlets, where my constituency is, certainly show that. Just how inadequate is totally inadequate? The main funding stream, the Housing Corporation's approved development programme, delivers only about 20,000 new affordable homes each year—at least that was the figure last year. The local authority social housing grant, the recycled capital grant, planning gain and direct registered social landlord investment together deliver another 25,000 affordable homes. We are therefore currently building 45,000 homes a year. Hon. Members will recall that the previous estimate of need was 90,000 a year. That means that we must double our total output. My second question for the Minister, therefore, is whether he accepts that we need to double our output of affordable housing and if not, what his assessment of the increased required is.
Tough requirements on planning gain and the use of prefabricated construction methods will help us to get more for our money. However, it is clear that the vast majority of the extra homes that we need will have to be funded by an increase in the budget for building new affordable housing. That requires something in the
164WH
region of £1.7 billion a year extra throughout the current spending review period. For the avoidance of doubt, that is £5 billion on top of the £5 billion already earmarked in the sustainable communities plan. Although we can dwell on the fact that the Government have vastly increased the money to be spent on affordable housing, the problem is that we need more. When I say that we need £5 billion on top, I want the Minister to know what he is aiming for.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. Lady, but she just said something that is factually incorrect. I have a parliamentary answer to the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) that shows clearly that the proposed amount of money that is available to the Housing Corporation, which is a major funding stream, in 2002–03 is exactly the same as it was in 1995–96: £1.7 billion. The simple fact is that the Government have not increased the resources for affordable housing—indeed, they have cut them through the abolition of the local authority social housing grant.
Ms Oona King: The hon. Gentleman is aware that the funds are increasing as we speak. I should remind him of the fact that under the Conservative Government my constituency, which has the highest density of poverty in the United Kingdom, received a cut in funding to be spent on affordable housing. The Labour Government, however, have increased the money available for affordable housing in my constituency. We now get 300 per cent. more than we ever got from the Tories. I therefore appreciate the hon. Gentleman's intervention, but not enough to thank him for it.
I should like, perhaps undiplomatically, to ask the Minister my third question, which is whether he agrees that extra funding by the proportion that I mentioned—£5 billion on top—is now necessary, given the problem. Do we need to double our output?
I return to the second term of reference, which is about the cost and consequences of not building affordable homes. The Committee has been quite generous on that point: it has been more diplomatic than me and resisted the conclusion that the decline in the number of affordable homes being built is having an impact on the delivery of key public services. I think that there is evidence for that, but in truth the impact on public services or even the wider economy is not the cost or consequence about which we should be concerned. The cost that we should he concerned about is the cost to the life chances, the health, welfare, educational achievement and employment prospects of those who are directly affected: the children, the young people and the families I represent.
My hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) eloquently outlined many of the problems faced by my constituents. I took a previous Housing Minister to visit a family in my constituency: 16 people were living in a property with two bedrooms. Some families on the waiting list, even if they have only two children, know that they have no chance of being offered new housing in the foreseeable future unless housing output can be doubled.
The Committee rightly highlighted the impact that the crisis has had on the number of homeless families with children in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. I

165WH
secured an Adjournment debate and campaigned on that issue because it is so important to end the use of bed and breakfast for families with kids. That is why I am so pleased that Ministers made a commitment to achieve that objective by next spring, and to give the families extra money. They have already managed to reduce the numbers in bed-and-breakfast accommodation by 16 per cent.—a reduction of 5,600 families with children—which is an excellent achievement, but those 5,600 families are the tip of the iceberg. For the vast majority of those in housing need—the backlog I mentioned earlier—there is almost no prospect of being adequately housed.
Among those most affected by the lack of housing are families living in overcrowded conditions. The progress made in tackling overcrowding between 1890 and 1990 has largely stalled; the latest survey of English housing estimates that about 500,000 households live in properties with one or more bedrooms below the bedroom standard. More than 175,000 of those families live in London, many of them in the borough of Tower Hamlets. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) for securing a ten-minute Bill on overcrowding which highlighted the plight of living in overcrowded conditions and, more importantly, included provisions to update the statutory definition of overcrowding.
Two years ago in this Chamber, the Minister's predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble), gave me an undertaking that the overcrowding standards would be reviewed. She deplored the fact that kitchens are still counted as rooms available to sleep in. It is a disgrace that the definition of statutory overcrowding that we use was introduced in 1935. It is 2003, and as Ministers have acknowledged, our understanding of the need for space and privacy has come a long way since then, yet the standard remains unchanged. My fourth question is therefore straightforward: will the Minister include an updated definition of overcrowding in the housing Bill? Will he or his officials please write to me and to my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North to let us know what progress has been made on the subject?
I know that the money needed will not be found immediately but I am angry that constituents who have already waited 20 years for an offer of family-sized accommodation are being told that they have to wait at least another 10 years. How can we increase the number of council and housing association homes? My suggestion, which touches on the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish, relates to the fact that not everyone who lives in London wants to stay here. As a Londoner who loves the place, I think that is a great shame, but many people, especially in inner London, are living in hell because of their housing. We should help them to get out and thereby release homes for those who want to stay.
The seaside and country homes scheme was one of the successes of the Greater London Council. It allowed pensioners to swap their council home in London for somewhere with a bit of peace and quiet on the coast or in the countryside. It usually involved their giving up a large, family-sized property for a smaller flat or bungalow. The scheme is still up and running but, sadly, in September 2002 there were 564 pensioners on the
166WH
waiting list, and many cannot even get nominated in the first place. Could that scheme be expanded, perhaps using compulsory purchase orders? Therefore, my fifth question is will the Minister consider expanding the seaside and country homes scheme?
Because of the shortage of time, I shall not detail the background to my questions. However, will the Minister consider increasing the money available for the cash incentive scheme, so that it would give people the incentive to relinquish their home? That would have to be extra money, but for the cost of subsidising one newly-built home, we could offer three or four cash incentive scheme grants and free up three or four homes. My sixth question is: will the Minister provide a relatively small amount of money to increase the number of cash incentive scheme grants available. The seventh is: will he increase the amount of money available for shared ownership schemes? Most people in my constituency cannot afford to invest; the average wage in Tower Hamlets is £12,000 a year, which falls below what is necessary for shared ownership.
I shall give up my eighth question and ask some of the questions that constituents put to me this morning and that I promised to raise. Are the Government aware that the rent restructuring policy does not enhance the supply of large, affordable houses and can policy be revised so that housing associations provide the five and six-bedroom houses that are needed? What will, the Government do to increase partnerships between mainstream providers and community groups, especially refugee community groups?
My final question is about choice-based letting schemes. One east London resident, Yasin Abdi, says that the policy is difficult for those who cannot read English, do not have internet access or do not know the areas well enough to make a suitable choice. It does not take note, for example, of the needs of the Somali community, especially its oldest members. Could the Government encourage local authorities to consider the issue?
Those questions show that my constituents want to engage with policy makers about affordable housing. They want to engage with the Minister, so I am delighted that he is one of the most engaging MPs in Parliament. I am sure that we shall be able to meet on the issue. What my constituents really want is for Ministers, MPs and policy makers to understand the misery that a lack of social housing inflicts on them, and then they want them to act.
4.7 pm
Mr. David Drew: I shall be brief because I know that others want to speak. I welcome the new Minister for Housing and Planning. I am sure that we shall have some interesting discussions, as we did in his previous incarnation. I also welcome the report and in particular the chairman of the Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett), who, in a former life, came to my constituency to observe the housing problems in Stroud. Although we are talking about affordable housing, it is in the context of the pressures on many of us in rural and semi-rural

167WH
areas to balance supply and demand. That is never easy to do.
I make no apology for drawing most of my evidence from an inquiry that the Labour group of rural MPs held last November. We considered housing in rural areas and all the main providers gave evidence to us. We came to two conclusions, the first of which was that there was a surprising degree of unanimity in rural areas about what needs to be done in view of the problems that the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) mentioned and the Joseph Rowntree Foundation report highlighted. The second was that, although I do not want to emphasise the differences, the difference between rural and urban areas affects housing more than it affects issues such as education and poverty.
I realise that the Minister will not be able to reply to all the points raised by those who have spoken today. I shall go through some of those points quickly. I shall start with the role of the Housing Corporation. We believe that the Housing Corporation has a key role to play in rural areas and that that role is sometimes underestimated. The corporation's role is primarily a funding one, but when I talked to its representatives, I discovered that its budget was underspent in rural areas because it cannot obtain the necessary land. That issue must be addressed.
We were disappointed at the rather precipitate removal of the local authority social housing grant, not just because of the money involved, but because of the symbolic nature of that measure. There was an implied threat to some of the partnerships to promote delivery in rural areas, which had taken a long time to put together. I am glad that the Government have reconsidered the matter in the short run. However, they should be aware that the sustainable communities plan does not take sufficient account of the rural dimension. My only criticism of the Select Committee report is that it could have included more on that problem.
On local authority housing, I will not rehearse the debate on council housing that some of us had a week ago. However, I believe that there is an obsession with the answer being voluntary transfer. The real issue is not being examined: how to provide more housing, whether through local authorities or registered social landlords. The key point is that there is an insufficient supply of the right type of housing. In my intervention on the hon. Member for North Cornwall, I said that we must understand that in rural areas we must take an holistic approach, of which housing is one element. It is no good providing housing if there are no jobs or transport to get people to those jobs. However, without housing, it is pointless to pretend that anyone will be able to afford to live in rural areas.
Mr. Tyler: When the hon. Gentleman intervened, I should have said that the job situation has improved in his area, as it has in mine. I give credit to the Government for that. That is why it is so tragic to see young people with access to jobs but with no access to affordable housing within reach of those jobs.
Mr. Drew: I agree. The improvement in the job situation is one of the Government's successes, but we
168WH
must realise that that success breeds other problems. When we are considering key worker housing, we should recognise that in rural areas we must work in a different and more sensitive way, because we cannot pretend that there will be large numbers involved.
The key problem is that of planning. Although I welcome the current legislation and hope that it is brought quickly into law, it will not provide a magic remedy, because the problems are historical and will take a long time to solve. There is still a dislocation between the Minister's Department and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs inasmuch as their planning arrangements, although not necessarily at odds with each another, do not work in parallel.
We welcome such ideas as rural design statements, but they do not necessarily get taken up in supplementary planning guidance, which is a shame because people put a lot of effort into them. In rural areas, the evidence shows that if people are given the means to deliver, they welcome the prospect of additional housing and there is not the nimbyism that is sometimes portrayed. However, people have to believe that what they are doing will be acted on, and that what they see is what they will get. They must be sure that when they want affordable housing, they will not end up with four-bedroom executive houses, as happened so often in the past. Otherwise, they will never again want to get involved in such time-consuming processes.
I come to my two last points—I am trying to keep to my 10 minutes. First, we must recognise that we are not only discussing building in rural areas, but refurbishment and repair. There is a lot of substandard housing that could be brought back into use. I am not talking about people who come in and knock two cottages into one, but refurbishment of housing with a bit of sensitive thought, so that the property can be used as rented accommodation by agricultural or other local workers. That would require Government intervention. That is particularly relevant to the elderly in rural areas. All the evidence shows that the elderly live in the most substandard housing, but they could stay in rural areas if refurbishment was organised through home improvement agencies such as Care and Repair, with which I am involved. All those agencies do wonderful work, but they are underpowered and underfunded.
My last point is about community land trusts. This is another point that has not been picked up. Community land trusts are an idea worth pursuing in this country, because they can work in both urban and rural areas and can be linked with housing for key workers. We have no tradition of using co-operative housing to the extent that some of us would like, and I hope that the Government will examine that idea and be creative. We must be both creative and sensitive in rural areas, but if the Government are serious about dealing with the problems, that is how they should act. I hope that, under the fresh steer of my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning, we will begin to see that happening.
4.15 pm
Mr. Andrew Love: First, I welcome the Minister to his new role and congratulate the Select Committee on its report, which has pushed the issue of affordable housing up the political agenda.

169WH
I start with the well known conundrum of 2001—record house price inflation at the same time as the lowest new housebuilding programme since records began in 1924. Many people will say that it is all the fault of the developers, because they have a land bank that will last five years, do not like brownfield developments, are in opposition to planning gain and will build only executive houses. I have heard all those reasons, but we must accept that there are problems in the system, including issues of remediation and decontamination with site assembly. We have talked endlessly, including in this debate, about the delays in the planning system, but we must recognise the considerable local opposition to many housing developments.
The Government have responded to some of the problems. The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill, which is currently going through the House—
Mr. Clifton-Brown: It is not.
Mr. Love: Well, it has progressed and will no doubt come back to us.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: Does the hon. Gentleman really think that deferring the Bill to another Session is progress?
Mr. Love: All I would say is that considerable progress was made on the Bill, and I am sure that when it returns in the next Session, progress will be made not only with the Bill's existing provisions, but with new provisions. I hope that today's debate will influence that because, although significant new funds have been provided to assist planning departments, especially to speed up the formulation of local plans, we all recognise that a great deal more must be done.
I want also to pay tribute to the Government because, in the past couple of years, they have focused on several issues that have made life extremely difficult for housing development. We have spoken about improved design. The floor for density of housing provision has recently been increased, and we have talked about some of the potential problems around that. We know that a new land-use database has come on stream and, through the challenge fund, there is the proposition of off-site construction. Although I accept some of the concerns that have been expressed about that and our previous experience of off-site construction, it can be one of many part-remedies to the problems that we face. We should also welcome the establishment of regional housing boards.
The Government have also instituted the communities plan of £22 billion, which sounds like a lot of money over a significant time. It focuses on four major investment areas, which will contribute more than 50 per cent. of the new housing that is required. We should welcome that, although more needs to be done, and I want to ask the Minister about several related issues.
First, we have talked already about planning obligations. Over a long period, developers have taken planning officers to the cleaners on their planning obligations. That calls not only for better training of planning officers, so that they understand how site assembly and costs work, but for more standardized
170WH
contracts. As with the private finance initiative, officers who do not normally deal with such issues would be given the assistance required to ensure that the public sector receives proper support on planning obligations.
Secondly—this issue has already been touched on—sites below a certain size do not require an affordable housing element. I shall not go into detail because of time, but I wonder whether, in introducing a revised planning guidance, the Minister will consider the question of the minimum size of site for the development of affordable housing. Similarly, we should consider what ought to be the percentage of affordable housing in particular developments—whether it should be 25 per cent., as it used to be, whether it should be 35 per cent., as it is in most parts of London, or whether it should be 50 per cent. The latter figure is stressed by the Mayor of London and, according to recent studies, it certainly would be possible in certain areas of high demand in inner London. That subject has to be taken on board when the guidance is revised. We need to ensure that the maximum affordable housing contribution is made on all such sites.
Finally, I shall touch on supply constraints in construction. We have not talked a great deal this afternoon about the skill shortages, but they are now acute in London and the south-east. In their programme of public sector investment—not only in housing, but in health and education—the Government should do something to address the problems of supply constraints.
Affordable housing is the main issue dealt with in the report. Some of the difficulties that we face have come about because, over the past six years, we have had good economic growth and a stable economy, and we have 1.5 million more people in work than in 1997. That has led to steep inflation in house prices in London and the south-east. That has dragged the private rented sector with it, creating what we all know to be a major problem, which is that housing is unaffordable for large sectors of the population in London and the south-east. People cannot afford to be owner-occupiers or access the private rented sector.
I now come to a little bit of yah-boo politics, which is something that I have missed. The Conservative Government's housing policy was called "the right to buy". That was it. That policy did not consider the need for additional units of affordable accommodation. Indeed, the number of units of affordable accommodation declined rather than increased. That policy did not include looking at the backlog of repairs.
Chris Grayling rose—
Mr. Love: I thought that that would get someone to their feet. I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman.
Chris Grayling: As the hon. Gentleman is doing yah-boo politics, can he explain why the construction of affordable housing has fallen since 1997?
Mr. Love: I shall come back to that as soon as I have done with the yah-boo politics. The Conservative Government's policy did not deal with growing homelessness in London and the south-east—indeed, throughout the country. The Conservatives closed their

171WH
eyes to all the real housing problems, and parroted the fact that we had the right to buy. I support the right to buy, as do my Government. Changes have been made in certain high-demand areas, and I recognise the need for that. I have no objection to the right to buy, but it should not have become a shibboleth.
I accept that there are a large number of homeless people—with somewhere in the region of 90,000 homeless households and between 10,000 and 12,000 households living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. I understand the difficulties that we face.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I have a high regard for the hon. Gentleman and it is kind of him to give way again but, with his yah-boo politics, he is just plain wrong. Let me just quote one sentence from paragraph 12 on page 10 of the Select Committee report:
"The number of homeless households in temporary accommodation is now the highest ever."
What does the hon. Gentleman think his Government have been doing in the last seven years?
Mr. Love: The first thing that the Labour Government did was to take the figures for investment in housing that the Conservatives had given them. In the first two years—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman says that that was a major mistake. If the Conservatives had continued in power after 1997, we would have been in considerably greater difficulty than we are now, so I will certainly not take lessons from them. They never showed any concern for the homeless and people in housing need when they were in government and they certainly do not deserve any respect for trying to show some concern when they are not in government.
The report shows clearly the increasing demand for housing that there has been and will continue to be. Household growth, depending on the figures, will be anywhere between 3.5 million to 4 million new households over the 20 years to 2016. Hon. Members have commented on the backlog in relation to housing need, overcrowding and homelessness. That means that there is a significant need for new affordable accommodation. That is the first thing that we must get clear. The second point, on which a number of hon. Members have commented, is that we are not projecting to build enough affordable units to meet that need.
I therefore want to ask my hon. Friend the Minister a couple of questions. First, I recognise that there are constraints on housebuilding in terms of skills, land and planning and those constraints should not be minimised. Is the Minister aware of the need for additional investment? We simply will not reduce the levels of housing need without that. Secondly, the report asks us to accept that greater priority should be given to low-cost home ownership apropos affordable accommodation. No one could object to that in principle. However, because we are talking about people in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, sleeping rough and in appalling overcrowded accommodation—most of them need affordable rented accommodation rather than the ability to access low-cost home ownership—we should not change the priorities at present.
172WH
The report emphasises the role of regional policy. I have some sympathy with the idea of a more comprehensive regional policy than we have at present, but I reiterate that that does not negate the need for a proper housebuilding programme. Although we may well need to create more jobs in the north and it might be possible for people to move from south to north, that does not get away from the fact that there is an acute shortage of owner-occupied housing and affordable housing in the south-east.
My last point relates to empty properties, which constitute 3.6 per cent. of the housing stock and are largely in the private sector. The majority are in Greater London. Does the Minister propose to do anything about them?
I welcome the report and the debate. I hope that the Conservative Opposition will be able to get their housing policy on the road so that we can have a proper debate. As we do that, we need to address the acute shortage of affordable accommodation that the report highlights.
4.29 pm
David Wright: May I begin by welcoming my hon. Friend the Minister to his new portfolio? As other hon. Members have said, we had one or two tussles in his previous life as well. I am sure that he will be an energetic Minister and as robust as his predecessor was in recent debates in Westminster Hall.
I, too, congratulate the Select Committee on the production of a very important report. I spent about 13 years working in housing regeneration before I entered the House. Having read the report, I believe that it is a major contribution to the debate on housing policy. It highlights some of the difficulties and some of the failings in the policies of successive Governments since the second world war.
I recommend that the Minister examines "Planning for Housing", a document produced by the Chartered Institute of Housing and the Royal Town Planning Institute. That is also an excellent contribution to the debate. I declare an interest in that I am a member of the Chartered Institute of Housing. I was not involved in putting together the report and I gain no financial benefit from the institute. Indeed, I spent 13 years working in housing, many years doing exams, and I have ended up paying the institute through my membership subscription. However, it is a worthwhile organisation, and I commend its report to the Minister.
One of the interesting things about the Chancellor's statement on the euro was the high profile that he gave to housing issues. We are starting to see Government policy coming together. The Government are often criticised—sometimes by their own Back Benchers—for not drawing strategies together and for failing to ensure a comprehensive approach. The Chancellor's understanding of the significance and importance of the housing market—certainly in terms of the debate on the euro—is welcome. That ties in with the proposals to re-examine the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill. We must also ensure that policy on developing sustainable communities pulls together all of the various strands. If we go into the euro at the wrong exchange rate and with the wrong interest rate calculations, the problems that we foresee at present for the provision of

173WH
affordable housing would end up being very small scale indeed. A significant part of the housing debate is entry into the euro in the medium to long term.
Mr. Drew: If at all.
David Wright: If at all.
I would like to touch on four key areas: first, clarity in the housing and planning system; secondly, understanding housing market dynamics; thirdly, building capacity in the construction sector, which my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) identified in his contribution; and lastly, a constituency issue that has national implications, namely, accommodation for young people.
There is a problem in this country with the definition of affordable housing. That is highlighted in the Select Committee's report and by a range of other players in the housing sector. We must consider amending circular 6/98, "Planning and Affordable Housing", to specify three areas of affordable housing. The first is social housing—subsidised rented housing—provided by local authorities or other social housing landlords. The second is intermediate-priced housing, including the private rented sector, and the third, the standard market housing available for sale. Until we specify those areas, local planning authorities and housing strategy players in local authorities will not be able clearly to specify what is required from the planning system if we are to deliver affordable housing. We have completely failed to do that in the past 20 years. We have not defined clearly enough what we expect from developers and other agencies in terms of providing affordable housing. We must break down the analysis and make sure that clear targets are set.
Mr. Tyler: I have been listening with great interest to the hon. Gentleman. Does he accept that the indices that have been developed by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation indicate that affordability is a relative term? It depends on differing circumstances in various parts of the country. That adds to the complexity of the situation that he describes.
David Wright: I certainly accept that. I am advocating that local planning authorities and local planning strategy players should consider those implications by looking at the three categories that I recommend and that have been recommended by other players in the housing sector. We must get local priorities right and fit national policy around local circumstances. The hon. Member for North Cornwall is right and I was interested to hear what he had to say about the south-west and some of the problems that exist there.
The second point that I wish to make, under the broad heading of clarity in the housing and planning system, is about the sheer complexity of developing community ownership models within the housing sector. I was involved in attempts to establish a redevelopment programme in the west midlands to produce new affordable housing after a large-scale clearance scheme. I have since left that job. Four years on, that project has failed to produce a single unit. Some of the innovative ideas that we have established over the years to produce new housing that is run, managed and developed by community organisations, have been far too complex. We must make the system easier to understand.
174WH
We should focus on equity release—people discuss it, but few schemes are implemented. Equity release should be much easier. It can be used as a tool to provide new housing or to assist people in moving into appropriate accommodation. We must ensure that local authority housing and planning departments work more closely together and that their targets, which they set in their local plans, are clearer.
We need greater transparency in section 106 agreements. We have already heard this afternoon how complex the section 106 agreement process can be. We probably need a tariff system within that process to secure the amount of affordable housing needed in local communities, regardless of whether sites are large or small.
We must build the skills of staff involved in housing and regeneration. For example, few authorities are expert on compulsory purchase orders. Over the years, there has been a skills drain out of the regeneration and housing sector, largely because the previous Government did not give a fig for the issue. Many people who might otherwise have entered the sector have not done so and we must rebuild the skills base.
Chris Grayling: Surely the hon. Gentleman understands that opportunities for regeneration are limited in the parts of the country that are suffering most from the acute shortage of affordable housing and of housing generally. In reality, using the substantial land banks that the Government still hold through, for example, NHS estates to create affordable housing may be a much more effective way to create the housing that we need for the next generation than pursuing the traditional regeneration and urban partnership routes that he is discussing.
David Wright: In a spirit of bipartisanship, I agree with the hon. Gentleman's last point. The Government could do more to release land bank assets, which would be an acceptable way forward and I shall develop that theme by analysing the housing market. Regeneration projects must fit the needs of local communities and I do not fully accept his initial analysis because a wide range of regeneration vehicles can deliver on the ground effectively; the issue is getting the right regeneration vehicle for a particular local area.
The next area that I want to discuss is understanding market dynamics. I acknowledge the issues raised by hon. Members representing constituencies in London and the south-east, where there is a chronic problem that must be confronted. I welcome the Government's proposals on gateway developments around the south-east, which will produce what will in effect be large new towns. I represent a new town and know that they have many positive features, but they must be got right.
We must stimulate demand in the midlands and the north. One way we can do that is by encouraging people to move out of the south-east, perhaps, as the Chancellor has indicated, by relocating Government Departments. We should also consider the overheating economy in the south-east. Major infrastructure projects are continually approved in the London area and that draws the Government's policy into question. Moving major infrastructure projects out of the south-east may make some London Members uncomfortable.

175WH
[Interruption.] I will name them. The national football stadium springs to mind as one example where we should have examined investing outside the London area. That may make some Members uncomfortable, but we feel strongly about that issue in the west midlands.
Sophisticated market analysis is important to our overall approach. The problem is more complicated than saying that housing in the south-east is overheating and that there is significant abandonment in the north—the structure of the market is much more sophisticated than that. In my constituency in the west midlands, areas of decline and low demand are located next to areas where demand has grown significantly. We must examine the operation of the market in a more sophisticated way. It is no good saying that people are abandoning property in the north and want to move to and live in the south-east.
We must consider a further round of the housing market renewal pathfinder to examine particular communities with a mixed housing market pattern, where there are pockets of decline and abandonment and growth in surrounding estates.
Mr. Mark Francois: I take the point that the problems are sometimes complex. The hon. Gentleman mentioned infrastructure. Does he accept that when one talks about infrastructure for additional housing, it is a question not just of transport, but of health care, access to GPs, school places and so on? We need more housing, but if we are going to build it we have to ensure that the other infrastructure is in place otherwise people will understandably be resistant.
David Wright: I accept that. The Government are doing a significant amount of work in that area. We need to ensure that the infrastructure is provided for new developments. Of course, cutting public expenditure by 20 per cent. would not help to ensure that we get investment in health and education. The Opposition need to look at their overall public expenditure strategy in terms of housing development.
Where we have large developments, particularly on brownfield sites, we must see a comprehensive mixed redevelopment. When we look at estates we should be tenure blind—when one walks down a street one should not be able to identify which housing is for rent and which for sale. We must not stigmatise social housing. We must not tackle it in a walled-off way, where an area of a development site is designated for the social housing element and is not integrated into the rest of the development scheme.
A lot of positive work has been done by English Partnerships in recent months. I perhaps would not have said that two years ago. It has worked to produce strong integrated communities where services and infrastructure are put in place with mixed-tenure redevelopments. I greatly welcome that. I join other hon. Members in welcoming the Government's moves on standardising the right to buy. I should like them to go further to standardise the discount rate to £16,000 for the right to acquire discount for housing association tenants. The right-to-buy structure needs to be standardised throughout the country.
176WH
On building capacity and the construction sector, we have to ensure that our education policy, and our 14-to-19 curriculum strategy in particular, link into the construction and development sector far more effectively. The Government have talked about improving and increasing vocational opportunities for young people at 14 and above. The construction sector must be seen as a positive choice. That will be difficult.
While we rightly promote significant improvements in the existing social housing stock, the demand for skilled labour in the construction sector will be high. It is not just new housing that requires significant levels of skilled construction labour, but refurbishment projects. Some of the targets for large-scale voluntary transfers will clearly create increasing pressure across the country for people with construction skills. The Government must understand that.
Finally, I spent a day or so the week before last touring some of the excellent projects run by Telford Christian Council in Telford to support homeless young people. The problem is not as big as it was 10 or 15 years ago when I was a member of the local authority housing committee, but significant numbers of young people still need accommodation. The Government should commit to a significant expansion of the foyer project principle. The Chancellor gave a commitment some time ago that we should have a high quality foyer in every town.
I have not heard much about foyer accommodation in recent years. We must ensure that Housing Corporation approved development programmes shift money through into prioritising that type of project. If one has a foyer that offers accommodation and training linkages, move-on accommodation is also needed. The capacity coming through the system cannot be dealt with unless the people who go into a foyer and receive high-quality training and accommodation can move out into other accommodation. We need growth in general affordable housing, particularly social housing, alongside the development of projects such as foyer initiatives.
4.44 pm
Mr. Edward Davey: This has been an excellent debate, for two reasons. The first is the excellent report that the Select Committee has produced for the House. Re-reading it before the debate, I was struck by how much of it I completely agree with and how comprehensive an analysis of this country's problem with affordable housing it provides. The second reason is that MPs deal with housing week after week in their surgeries. It is probably the main issue raised—it certainly is in my constituency—and daily we are faced with and have to understand our constituents' housing problems. Everyone who has spoken today has shown their knowledge, which was probably gained from their constituency experience.
We have a problem with the Government. It is not the Minister's fault—he has been in post only a little while—but he is, I think, the fifth, or perhaps the fourth, Housing Minister since Labour came to power in 1997. That does not suggest a long-term political approach in the Department with responsibility for housing. That must change. When I welcomed the Minister's predecessor, the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), I said that he was to charm what the Deputy

177WH
Prime Minister is to sophistication. I am not quite sure how to welcome the new Minister: perhaps, following the point made by the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King), I can say that he is more engaging than Ratner's.
To be serious, although I agreed with much of the report, I disagreed with one or two points, which I shall highlight. The report might have been better if the hon. Lady for Bethnal Green and Bow had not left the Select Committee, because it is noticeable that the Committee did not have a London Member. I found one or two aspects of the report surprising, such as paragraph 18, where the Committee reported that it had not received conclusive evidence that the shortage of affordable housing was the major reason for the recruitment problems in public services. Certainly in my constituency, the shortage of affordable housing is the major reason for recruitment problems in the health service, the police force and schools. That conclusion was therefore particularly surprising to me.
Andrew Bennett: One of the problems of Select Committees is that we are very dependent on the quality of the evidence that we receive. Had lots of people in London said that, we could have taken it into account. Sadly, the people in the hon. Gentleman's constituency clearly did not feel that it was worth while writing to us.
Mr. Davey: The Chairman of the Select Committee may have a valid point, but my experience and perhaps that of Labour London Members—I am getting affirmative nods from them—is that the shortage of affordable housing is a major problem.
I was also surprised that the Select Committee said that there is no evidence of a severe effect on the quality of services in London and the south-east compared with the rest of the country. Perhaps, the evidence was not produced, but I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman came to my constituency to talk to head teachers and GPs, he would see that there is a problem with the effect on the quality of public services.
I shall not be churlish, however; overall, the report is excellent because it faces up to the extent of the problem. The hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) said that there is a crisis. She was careful in her use of that word, but was determined that we should use it in respect of affordable housing. I am sure that she is right. I see the problem every week in my advice surgeries: I see couples who are both on low incomes and who have no chance of purchasing or even renting a house. In my intervention on the hon. Lady, I touched on the problem of housing benefit. The cap on housing benefit means that some rents in the private sector are simply beyond the reach of people on low incomes, even when they are two-earner couples both in full-time employment.
The problem extends to the owner-occupied sector. The report by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, "Can Work. Can't Buy", to which my hon. Friend the Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) referred extensively, gives a stark analysis. I have looked at the incomes of key workers in my constituency and at their pay as a percentage of the income that they would need to buy a very modest house in the borough of Kingston. I discovered that social workers receive an income that
178WH
is only 36.9 per cent. of the income needed to buy a house, and a nurse receives an income that is only 38.6 per cent. of the income needed to buy a modest house. That is a huge difference. Those people have no chance or expectation of being able to purchase a house—we are excluding them from achieving what should be a reasonable aspiration. Some attention from Government is needed.
The problem is complex, and I think that the debate has shown that. There are differences between different parts of the country and within small areas of the housing market. That is why Liberal Democrats believe that the solution should come from the local housing authority, with enabling support from central Government. Local solutions are needed because of the complex nature of the problem.
Having said that the problem is complex and that there is a crisis, what are the Government doing about it? My main criticism of the Government, who have been in power for six years, is that they have been incredibly slow to tackle the problem. In debate after debate during this and the last Parliament, I and other Liberal Democrat London MPs have focused on the problems of affordable housing for key public sector workers and many others. We have been bringing the issue to the Government's attention since 1997. In many respects—I am not making a party political point— we were the only voice apart from honourable exceptions on the Government Back Benches. The Government refused to listen. I am not surprised that we have this problem: the Government were not paying attention to it in their early years.
There is some evidence, particularly in the Deputy Prime Minister's sustainable communities plan, that the Government are waking up to the problem. However, even if one looks at the details of the plan, one finds that it is not ambitious enough to deal with the scale of the problem that we are facing. One can look at a number of Government failures in that respect. The guidance on affordable housing has yet to be updated. We have been waiting for that for a year or two, if not longer. Why has it not been updated? People need it, developers certainly need it, and local authorities need it.
We had the disaster of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill. That is a sorry tale. The Bill emerged from Standing Committee in January in a pretty dreadful state because the Government had not accepted any amendments. It is now being sent back to Committee but will not be considered until next autumn. If there is a crisis and the planning system is part of the solution, as the report suggests, why are the Government not taking more action? I hope that when the Bill returns to Committee, the Government will take out much of what was in the Bill, because some of it was frankly dreadful and would make the problems even worse. I hope that the Government will read the report that we are debating and take some lessons from the Select Committee on reforms to the planning system.
There is also the matter of the local authority social housing grant, which the Government are abolishing. At a time when there are many schemes in the pipeline to build affordable housing throughout the country, particularly in rural areas, the Government are pulling the plug. Not only will that prevent early solutions to the problem, but money will have been wasted. In

179WH
producing those plans and schemes for affordable housing, public sector money has already been spent. Councils, housing associations and private developers have put up money and the Government are therefore wasting money by abolishing the grant scheme. I hope that the Government will listen to the Local Government Association's strong and detailed representations and delay abolition of the grant so that the schemes that are in the pipeline can be built.
When one examines the overall housing budget, it is interesting to note how it is used. Various hon. Members have spoken about the need for more resources and they are probably right, but the taxpayer's money that is being spent is not being used very well. We have done some calculations that suggest that more than a third of the housing budget has been spent on policies that produce no new houses, including right to buy and the subsidies relating to stock transfer. If one adds up all the money spent on those policies, it accounts for a third of the housing budget since Labour came to power. That money has not produced a single new home. We need a value-for-money test on the way the Government are spending housing money.
There are many other problems with the way in which the Government have tried to attack the problem. Let us consider the starter homes initiative, which is supposed to help in London. I notice a grimace from the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow; no doubt she has experienced the same problems as I have with that £250 million scheme. It was supposed to target key workers, and when it was launched in December 2000, it was said that it would help 10,000 workers. However, the figures that I have from March 2003 show that it has helped slightly fewer than 3,000, and of the money that has been spent on helping about a quarter of the people that the scheme was meant to help, £12.3 million has been spent on administering the initiative. Surely we can use the available money far more effectively. Why was that money not channelled to housing associations and local housing authorities, so that more could have been built and more people housed?
There are other issues. To touch on a human issue, people have talked about a shortage of skills in the construction industry, which is big problem if we are to get the major boost to new homes, repair and renovation that we need. Some 76 per cent. of employers in the construction industry say that a shortage of skilled workers is a major problem. I went round Feltham young offenders institution recently. The Government are doing some good work to ensure that more money goes into education and training in places such as Feltham to ensure that the young men in there get the skills they need to do good work after coming out. Some of the schemes that I saw, such as bricklaying, feed directly into the skills shortage problem in the construction industry.
However, the governor of Feltham told me that he could not pay the rates needed to attract an instructor for plumbing, because plumbers out in the private sector can earn vastly more than he can offer. Therefore, he cannot equip the young men in Feltham with all the skills they need to be able to get a home, get a job and start contributing when they come out, which is what
180WH
those young people want to do. We must consider how to deal with the problems holistically, and the Government must do more.
One can speak for hours about housing—I know that some hon. Members feel so passionately that they could probably speak for days about it. I have not covered half of the things that I wanted to say, but I want to give a chance to both the Conservative spokesman—that is always fun—and to the Minister, so we can find out how much he has been reading in the past few days.
Let me end with a comment and a question for the Minister. One policy that could be developed to provide more affordable homes in high-demand areas quickly is a much more concerted attack on empty homes. I am not talking about the problems of empty homes in low-demand areas, but empty homes in high-demand areas. The Government are aware of the problem and recently produced guidance for local authorities on empty homes strategies. That is all well and good, but we were promised consultation on compulsory leasing powers. I will not go into that full debate, but it was mentioned in a previous Select Committee report.
Those compulsory leasing powers would give local housing authorities the teeth to get going and to ensure that where the scandal of empty homes in high-demand areas arises, those homes can be brought on tap quickly. I know that the Conservatives are not very happy about that, but Government need not worry about what they say. The powers are needed, and I do not know why the Government have not issued a consultation paper—if they have already done so, I apologise for missing it. Why are such powers not in the draft housing Bill? If they were, we could be consulting on them already and getting the provisions in, because they are much needed. What has happened to that consultation? Will the Government hold a fast-track consultation? At the moment, it is the one thing that could make a big difference quickly.
4.59 pm
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to catch your eye in this debate, Mr. Benton. I start by declaring my interest as a member of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. May I also warmly welcome the Minister to his new post? He and I have had dealings on many occasions and I have always found him an honourable man. Indeed, the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) described him as one of the most engaging MPs in the Palace. Without wishing to start any scandals, I would say that she is one of the most engaging MPs in the Palace.
This has been an interesting debate, and I congratulate the Chairman of the Select Committee and the Committee itself on an excellent and timely report. It contains a lot of useful information, and the Minister and the Government will need more than a magic wand to start putting right what is undoubtedly a serious problem.
In 1996, the Prime Minister promised to
"do everything in our power to end the scandal of homelessness, to tackle the spectacle of people sleeping rough on the streets and to end the waste of families sleeping in bed and breakfast accommodation."

181WH
Sadly, seven years after that promise, today's reality is different. As the report comments on page 1,
"more and more people cannot afford to buy or rent a home".
A Labour Government are presiding over a record number of homeless people. According to the Government's official figures, the number of families assessed as being in priority need has surged from 102,410 in 1997 to a staggering figure of 125,750 in 2002, an increase of 18 per cent.
I have quoted already perhaps one of the report's most damning sentences. It says on page 10:
"The number of homeless households in temporary accommodation is now the highest ever. Between the first quarter of 1997 and the third quarter of 2002, the figure has risen by 100 per cent. from 41,260 to 84,800."
The most staggering fact is that, as a result of that homelessness, the number of families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation has more than trebled from 4,100 in 1997 to 12,670 in 2002. That is a scandalous waste of human resources, and I hope that the Government's pledge of ending it by the end of next year will become a reality. Sadly, I very much doubt that it will.
As Shelter says in a briefing for this debate:
"Government programmes to end child poverty, tackle social exclusion and promote opportunity will not deliver until this need is met."
On the health, education and well-being of people living in temporary accommodation, Shelter continues:
"There is a high prevalence of infectious respiratory and gastrointestinal diseases … Homelessness and overcrowding can seriously undermine a child's educational and life prospects … Homeless families are often placed in accommodation far away from the area where they lost their home".
Shelter says that it
"strongly supports the commitment to end the use of bed and breakfast accommodation for homeless families by March 2004."
Will the Minister tell us exactly what he will do about that commitment? I hope that it will be to ensure an end to people living in bed and breakfast rather than to massage the figures.
Shelter continues to make the point, which I have made in interventions, that we cannot produce affordable housing without the resources. It says:
"Spending plans allow for around £1.4 billion"—
I think that that is an underestimate—
"to be spent on providing new affordable housing in 2003/04. This includes resources provided through the Housing Corporation's Approved Development Programme, the Challenge Fund, the Starter Homes Initiative and the Safer Communities Supported Housing Fund. It is estimated that these resources will provide a total output of 25,300 units."
I have to tell the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) that, when we left office, we were building 35,000 affordable units, so his comment that the Conservative Government were building fewer affordable units than the Labour Government is simply untrue.
I want the problem to be sorted, but I regret to say that most of the Government's actions to date—I hope that this new Minister will shine a light on the problem and secure some positive action—have contributed to the problem getting worse. A parliamentary answer to the hon. Member for St. Ives (Andrew George) shows
182WH
that in nominal terms, let alone real terms, the Government grant to the Housing Corporation is only about the same today as it was in 1995, decreasing slightly from £1.722 billion to £1.712 billion. When we add that to the lash-up of abolishing the local authority social housing grant, it begins to make nonsense of the funding of social authority housing. It was a lash-up because, although local authorities were consulted in August 2002, they were not finally told about the abolition until 6 March this year, as they prepared their budgets for 1 April.
The Conservative group on the Local Government Association has produced a briefing on the subject for today's debate. It states:
"LASHG has produced over 53,000 homes since 1996, and last year produced nearly a quarter of all social housing units. It has played a central role in developing affordable homes in the South East, the East and London, both for low-paid workers and for homeless households."
It concludes:
"The combination of LASHG abolition, the cut in Supporting People grant and allocations being made by Regional Housing Boards with no more than 70 per cent. of current HIP levels guaranteed from 2004 has created a climate of uncertainty."
Not only has it created uncertainty, but a number of local authority schemes and housing association schemes simply will not come forward.
I turn to the shortage of key worker housing. A briefing has been produced by the Local Government Association, which reports real problems with that initiative. For example, the London borough of Bromley has a shortage of social workers; Hampshire has a shortage of firefighters; and East Hampshire has a shortage of constabulary, with 119 vacancies. A recent study of housing needs indicates that 50 per cent. of local businesses in Crawley borough think that the problem impacts on their recruitment of staff; and 32 per cent. think that housing problems have an impact on staff retention. The south of England has real problems, but particularly in relation to housing for key workers.
I have been asked to draw a particular problem to the Minister's attention, and I shall be grateful if he would write to me about h. It is to do with the starter home initiative. Further education lecturers are not included in the definition of key workers. The briefing from the Association of Colleges tells us that the Department for Education and Skills said that FE teachers are not identified as "a priority". Yet that briefing states also that college lecturers teach the majority of 16 to 18-yearolds. They teach 600,000 children, compared to the 400,000 taught in schools.
I met the principal of Cirencester college the other day, and he said that the problem is making it difficult to recruit further education teachers in areas such as the Cotswolds. I urge the Minister earnestly to consider the problem, and to see whether further education teachers could not be included in the definitions in the starter homes initiative.
Andrew Bennett: Is that a shopping list? Does the hon. Gentleman want to expand the definition of key workers even further? Does he not accept that, although a case can be made for many more people being treated as key workers, it would undermine the concept?
Mr. Clifton-Brown: Of course, if the number of homeless is at a record level, and if the problems are as

183WH
I described, particularly in the south of England, there will he a huge unmet need. We shall have to look at the problem, and try to find a way to produce more affordable houses.
David Wright: Is the hon. Gentleman going to touch upon the Conservative party's policy document "A home of our own", which talks about the extension of right to buy to housing association tenants? It states:
"On reasonable assumptions a new home could be provided for every two homes sold to their tenants".
I am not sure whether those figures stack up, but the policy will reduce the amount of available rented housing in the social housing sector. Indeed—
Mr. Joe Benton: Order. The intervention is becoming lengthy.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful, Mr. Benton, but I shall have to take a minute out of the Minister's time, because I want to deal with that intervention.
So much rubbish is talked about this subject; it is unbelievable. For those who want to buy their homes, it is only fair that, if there is a right-to-buy policy in the council house sector, there should be one in the registered social landlord sector. There is no reason why that should not produce at least another 15,000 affordable homes in this country at no cost to the taxpayer. We could build another 25,000 homes at no cost to the taxpayer if we used all the proceeds from the current 55,000 homes sold under the right-to-buy initiative. That would mean 40,000 new homes at no cost to the taxpayer. [Interruption.] Yes, the ratio is two to one, but the houses do not disappear. People live in them and enjoy doing so. We are talking about availability. The hon. Member for Telford (David Wright) knows full well that people live in their houses for at least 10 years. In many cases in London, houses become vacant every 20 years. The important thing is therefore availability, not numbers.
The hon. Gentleman is seeking to foment trouble for me, but I commend him on his comments about the use of compulsory purchase powers. The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill has been a lamentable story, but a benefit of the delays is that we will be able to sort out the compulsory purchase system. One of the things that the Conservative Government did very well under my right hon. Friend the former Member for Henley was to regenerate some of the worst areas in the country, such as the Hulme estate in Manchester, the docklands area of Liverpool, the centre of Leeds, the centre of Glasgow, and London docklands—an excellent piece of regeneration. The message was to put people with skills in compulsory purchase into those areas so that large enough blocks could be accumulated for redevelopment.
I could make several more comments before the Minister makes his winding-up speech, but I will make only two. I hope that we can give greater credence to the private sector, which, with encouragement, could contribute considerably to the real and dreadful problem of homelessness. There are 750,000 empty houses in this country, and I am sure that, with
184WH
encouragement and the right incentives, including tax incentives, many of those houses could be brought into the private rented system. Shelter reckons that at least 10,000 houses a year could be made available. However, they will be returned to the private sector only if the Government pay attention to this aspect of the problem. They will need to reconsider their rents policy. With the uncertainty that surrounds rents, the policy will make it very difficult to make that number of homes available.
Finally, we should consider the amount of brownfield land available and the amount of communications infrastructure that we will need to provide before we build these big gateway projects in the south and southeast. Otherwise we will end up concreting over a lot of green fields. We need to ensure that the communications infrastructure and other infrastructure, to which hon. Members referred, are in place before the houses are built. Otherwise, we will have a situation similar to that in the docklands, where houses were built but no one lived in them until the docklands light railway was put in, when, of course, they became popular.
There is, of course, huge demand in the south-east, and the planning system needs to be revised sensibly, as circular 6/98 suggests. All those things need to be done, but we must bear in mind that we are on a tiny island. Let us not concrete it over more than we need to.
5.12 pm
The Minister for Housing and Planning(Keith Hill): First, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett) on securing the debate on the report on affordable housing produced by the Select Committee on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, Planning and Local Government.
I am grateful for the kind words of welcome from my hon. Friend and from many other hon. Members on both sides. Colleagues may recall my hon. Friend pondering that I might be better employed digging foundations. I am, however, glad that I stayed for the debate, which has been a most educational experience for a Minister on a learning curve.
I listened carefully to all the speeches and will reflect carefully on the points that hon. Members have made. Clearly, I am not in a position to deal with all of them, not least with what ultimately became the 11 questions that my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) asked me, but I will write to her and to my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) on overcrowding and the housing Bill, and to other hon. Members on the issues that they raised, as appropriate. There are clearly many hon. Members in the Chamber with a great deal of expertise on housing matters, and I suspect that our dialogue will not end at 5.30 pm today.
We have had a very wide-ranging debate today on one of the most important issues facing this country: how to ensure that everyone has the opportunity to be decently housed in a prosperous community and with a good quality of life. The need for more and better homes to meet the variety of housing needs is one of the key challenges that the debate and the Committee's report have addressed. We know that we cannot deal with housing in isolation. It must be considered squarely and in the context of sustainable communities, so that jobs, homes, transport and public and private services are all

185WH
provided in a coherent and balanced way. The debate has demonstrated that we face different challenges in different places: in parts of the north and the midlands suffering low demand the issue is not so much the supply of housing as giving people hope that their local communities have a future.
It has been said that homes are where jobs spend the night. Across much of the south-east and London, years of economic prosperity and lack of housing supply have meant that homes and jobs are out of kilter. The step change that the Deputy Prime Minister announced in February in his sustainable communities plan provides a convincing and co-ordinated set of policies and initiatives. If there is to be a step change in the supply of housing, we need to do things radically differently—all those involved in the social and private housing sector have to raise their game.
The first thing to recognise is that we need more homes and we need them quickly. The Government share the concerns of the Committee about the effects of rising house prices and acknowledge that numbers of affordable homes—social homes or homes for low-cost home ownership—have declined in the last two to three decades. Year after year, this country built fewer and fewer homes and wondered why there was more and more demand. The strain has been felt particularly by those working in key public services, such as the teachers, nurses and police who care for, educate and protect us.
When the Government came to power in 1997, we faced falling budgets for new housing projects and a massive £19 billion backlog of housing repairs. Even where money was spent on housing, communities were often forgotten about. There was a huge legacy of neglect and under-investment in housing infrastructure. We all know that communities cannot be transformed overnight, but there is a great deal that we can do in the short, medium and long term if we target our resources and efforts on where we can make most difference, and targeting is vital.
I hear what has been said about the abolition of the social housing grant. In the past 10 years, that grant has been consistently under-spent. Of the £500 million available each year, it was unusual for more than £400 million to be spent. Broadly, the system advantaged debt-free authorities and did not allocate funds to areas of greatest need. We are, therefore, seeking a more strategic approach. Meanwhile, we are making £550 million available this year through transitional arrangements.
Mr. Davey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Keith Hill: I am sorry, I have a lot to say and little time in which to say it. The policy statement, "Sustainable Communities: Building for the Future" sets out our proposals to spend £22 billion to strengthen and rebuild our communities over three years and to focus that money on real need. After the years of go hang laissez faire, we recognise the need for targeted, focused financial and regulatory support where it can do most good.
The new regional arrangements announced in the sustainable communities plan will allow a regional view to be taken on such questions, with allocations being
186WH
made on the advice of new regional housing boards, based on their regional housing strategies. That approach will promote effective targeting of resources and will allow schemes to be selected on the basis of local needs and priorities. Across the board, our action needs to be focused and proportionate.
For example, the Government are concerned about the impact of right-to-buy sales in areas under the greatest housing pressure, so we recently lowered the maximum right-to-buy discount available to tenants in 41 such areas, where there are high levels of homelessness and prices are high. I have this week circulated a note on the criteria used to identify those authorities. The maximum discount available in those areas is now £16,000, the amount suggested by the Committee. I also want to reassure the House that the Government share the Committee's concern about exploitation and we shall tackle it by measures in the housing Bill.
We have focused our response on where the situation needs to be addressed. A one-size-fits-all approach does not allow for the complexity and diversity of the housing issues facing the country. We can create tailored solutions only if we have a clear understanding of the nature and operation of all sectors of the housing market in different local authority areas. Research is, therefore, under way to provide a tool to aid the analysis of housing markets in low, high and balanced-demand areas. This so-called housing market assessment tool is for use by local authorities and groups of authorities. It will allow them to make informed decisions across all tenures to reflect current and future housing demand. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North that it will help them to produce sound planning policies that address communities' needs—whether for smaller homes for singles or larger homes for families.
In the short to medium term, there is a manifest need for major investment in homes to buy or rent at below market rates. They are needed to tackle homelessness and to house key workers. The communities plan provides £5 billion over the next three years for those purposes, and at least £l billion of that is expected to be used for key worker housing.
Some 3,000 key workers have so far purchased homes that they would have been unable to afford without assistance from the starter home initiative. We expect several thousand more key workers and their families to benefit from the scheme. I am sure that those thousands of nurses, teachers and police officers, not to mention their families, will be shocked to learn of the scorn that the Liberal. Democrat party has expressed for a scheme that has given them the chance of a home.
The Housing Corporation's £300m challenge fund for the current year will provide 8,000 homes for rent and low-cost home ownership in London, the south-east and the east of England. About half of those will be for key workers, providing low-cost home ownership and housing at intermediate rents below market level. We are focusing large amounts of resources on the immediate challenge posed by the need for homes for key workers. In the medium to longer term, however, we must increase private housebuilding in high-demand

187WH
areas in recognition of people's aspiration to own a home of their own. That is why we have given priority to reforming the planning system to promote a simplified, more predictable and less adversarial process; to promoting the more effective integration of housing and planning; to ensuring that the homes planned in existing regional planning guidance for London and the wider south-east are actually built; and to concentrating homes in sustainable growth areas.
We recognise that even that volume of extra housing may not have a significant effect on house prices. Nevertheless, much can be achieved through a better mix of housing. Too many upper-end-of-market homes are being built at a time when there is considerable growth in one-person households. When we plan the growth areas, we must ensure that they provide a good supply of affordable housing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish suggested that I say a world about Ashford, and I am happy to do so. The Ashford growth area seeks to deliver 13,100 dwellings in 2001–16, and 30 per cent. of them should be affordable. That compares with an average of 25 per cent. in the rest of Kent. This new development will be delivered through higher-density building and natural extensions of the present urban area, supported by new and improved bus networks.
Last year, my Department approved a private finance initiative package of £25 million to regenerate Ashford's largest social housing estate, the Stanhope estate. The work will involve some demolition, rebuilding and refurbishment, as well as environmental improvements. Measures to be taken by Ashford to mix tenures will include providing affordable housing for sale and promoting social inclusion. Progress in Ashford is well under way. Indeed, I am pleased to report that the new Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Phil Hope), attended the first meeting of the Ashford delivery board yesterday afternoon.
I remind hon. Members that affordable housing does not have to be subsidised, and the market can provide much affordable housing for renting and owner occupation.
The Government agree that the provision of affordable housing negotiated through the planning system makes an important contribution but is not by itself the answer to meeting affordable housing needs. We therefore intend to update the guidance on planning obligations and planning for affordable housing, and to support that with practical advice about what works well and where. We will seek to reduce the time taken for negotiations over planning obligations and to encourage the best results for local authorities and developers. We will consult on allowing local authorities to seek affordable housing on smaller sites where that is justified. In updating planning guidance, we intend to address the concerns raised by the Committee. The draft guidance will be subject to consultation in the normal way.
188WH
I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) that we have introduced a £350 million planning delivery grant to incentivise performance on planning matters and, not least, improvements in the handling of planning applications.
Mr. Francois: Will the Minister give way?
Keith Hill: No, I am afraid that I cannot.
Andrew Bennett: Can my hon. Friend the Minister just tell us when we will have the extra news about section 106?
Keith Hill: My aspiration is that the extra news will be delivered very shortly.
Our emphasis on more homes, more quickly, must not be at the expense of quality. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) was right about that. We are not in the business of repeating the mistakes of the past—the soulless estates and identikit homes. Design will be at the heart of our housebuilding strategy.
We need to intensify efforts to identify and use brownfield land. The Government agree with the Committee that local authorities need to take a more proactive approach to facilitating site assembly if our objectives of the more efficient use of urban land and the reuse of previously developed sites are to be achieved.
English Partnerships is developing a comprehensive national strategy for brownfield land. That will start from a detailed understanding of what brownfield land is available, making full use of the national land use database, which identifies 66,000 hectares of previously used land that are capable of redevelopment. That is an area slightly bigger than the Isle of Man. The strategy will cover how best to bring sites back into use, especially in growth areas.
All our work must be informed by a willingness to embrace innovation and get out of old mindsets. Reflecting local circumstances is a key point. Like the Committee, the Government are concerned that the houses being built do not always adequately reflect a community's needs. It is Government policy to encourage mixed-use development, because that can be more sustainable than single-use development. We want to work with local authorities, house builders and other housing providers to ensure that the size and type of housing better matches need, especially by providing more homes for the increasing number of smaller households.
I emphasise that our proposals are geared towards helping rural areas as well as urban ones. This is not a competition between urban and rural areas; it is about sustainable communities for people wherever they live. I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) and the hon. Members for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) and for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) that it is essential that the affordable housing needs of the countryside are taken fully into account, so that we pass on a thriving rural England to future generations.
Sustainable communities do not depend solely on quality housing at a price that people can afford. They need jobs, services, an accessible and enjoyable environment and active engagement by the people living

189WH
in them. The problems that we face in our communities are deep rooted and vary hugely across the country. No hon. Member could reasonably claim that the solutions were easy or immediate. After all, we are turning round years of under-investment, not only in housing but in the fabric of our public realm. We are investing £22 billion in sustainable communities, but money on its own, though handy, is not enough, so we are reforming as well as spending, because we recognise the importance of cultural—
Mr. Tyler: On a point of order, Mr. Benton. Is it not evident that the speech that the Minister is reading is largely typed and does not refer to the contributions of hon. Members? We all understand that he is out of
190WH
practice, but is it not an insult to hon. Members who have taken part that so little of his speech refers to the debate?
Mr. Joe Benton: I regret to tell the hon. Gentleman that that is not a point of order. The manner in which the speech is delivered is purely a matter for the Minister.
Keith Hill: May l point out to the hon. Member for North Cornwall that the speech is in response to the report on affordable homes? I am dealing with the key issues raised in that, but of course I have sought to deal with the issues raised by colleagues. I have also given a clear undertaking to write to them on particular issues that they raised. I am responding to the broad issues raised during the debate.
It being half-past Five o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.

TRANSPORT

  Mobility Vehicles
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received from operators of mobility vehicles about the withdrawal of mobility breakdown cover by motoring organisations; and if he will make a statement. [120383]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We have received representations from a number of disabled people affected by the withdrawal of breakdown cover for these vehicles and we have discussed this issue both with the motoring organisations and with representatives of wheelchair manufacturers and suppliers. We will continue to support initiatives to offer a similar service in future.

  Motorcycles
  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps his Department is taking to encourage the development and use of practical alternatives to permanent tints of less than 50 per cent. light transmittance in motorcycle visors for daytime use only; and if he will make a statement. [119929]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have called for standards bodies to encourage the development of visor designs that lend themselves to both day and night time use. I understand that the relevant technical committee at the British Standards Institution has decided that the matter should be brought to the attention of the corresponding technical committee at the International Standards Organisation.

  In addition, the Department is planning new research on motorcyclists' helmets and visors that, among other things, would include work to:

  (i) help develop requirements better suited to light reactive visor materials or other means of dealing with low sun and sun glare; and

  (ii) evaluate new visor concepts.

  The research is expected to start in September this year and finish by November 2005.

  Railways
  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans there are for changes in the level of rail services in Scotland. [120076]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Scottish Executive are responsible for funding and specifying services in Scotland provided under the ScotRail franchise. The Executive, together with the Strategic Rail Authority, are working towards the re-letting of the current franchise, which ends in 2004.
  336W
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his Answer of 12 May 2003,Official Report, column 128W, on railways, whether Thameslink has asked for approval from (a) the SRA and (b) Network Rail to exceed the prescribed journey times; and if he will list Thameslink core routes and prescribed permitted journey times. [117274]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The SRA have informed me that the information they gave me for the answer given on 12 May 2003 was incorrect. In consequence, the hon. Member was misinformed. I regret this has happened. The SRA have apologised for the error. The SRA have now told me that Thameslink have, in fact, requested and received approval from them to exceed the prescribed maximum journey times for the services listed in the table. The SRA have granted derogations as the prescribed journey times are being exceeded because of capacity constraints, and in several cases, because this allows services to be extended from Luton, where they would otherwise terminate, to Bedford. Network Rail does not prescribe maximum journey times.

  The approvals granted by the SRA are:

  Minutes

  Service

  Prescribed maximum journey time

  Actual journey time

  Kings Cross Thameslink to Bedford (weekdays)

  17.42

  72

  80

  20.06

  72

  74

  Kings Cross Thameslink to Bedford (Saturdays)

  17.51

  72

  74

  18.21

  72

  74

  19.51

  72

  76

  Blackfriars—Luton (weekdays)

  09.05

  49

  50

  09.32

  49

  50

  Blackfriars—Luton (Saturdays)

  17.27

  48

  49

  17.57

  48

  49

  18.27

  48

  49

  18.57

  48

  49

  The permitted journey times (for weekdays) specified for Thameslink's core routes are as follows:
  London Blackfriars—Bedford: 68 minutes provided that it shall be 60 minutes for 80 per cent. of services. If services call at Luton Airport Parkway, the maximum journey time shall be 72 minutes provided that it shall be 62 minutes for 80 per cent. of services;
  London Blackfriars to Luton: 47 minutes save that services calling additionally at Luton Airport Parkway may take 49 minutes;
  Kings Cross Thameslink to Brighton: 99 minutes provided that it shall be 85 minutes for 75 per cent. of services; and
  Kings Cross Thameslink to Sutton via Wimbledon: 68 minutes provided that it shall be 62 minutes for 80 per cent. of services.

  Sustainable Development
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what remit relating to sustainable development is(a) required of and (b) undertaken by his Department's (i) executive agencies, (ii) advisory non-departmental bodies, (iii) executive non-departmental bodies, (iv) tribunals, (v) public corporations and (vi) other bodies. [115730]
  337W
  Mr. Roger Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what remit relating to sustainable development is required by his Department's(a) executive agencies, (b) advisory non-departmental bodies, (c) executive non-departmental bodies, (d) tribunals, (e) public corporations and (f) other bodies. [116676]

  Mr. McNulty
  All of the bodies for which my Department is responsible are committed to the objectives set out in the Government's overall strategy for sustainable development, "A Better Quality of Life" (Cm 4345), published in May 1999. In addition, they are expected to operate within the Framework for Sustainable Development on the Government Estate.

  Uninsured Drivers
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his answer of 10 June 2003,Official Report, column 743W, on uninsured drivers, what the overall cost of uninsured driving was in Great Britain between 1997 and 2001; and what assessment has been made of the average increase in the insurance premium of a motorist in each of these years. [120042]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Estimates from the insurance industry show that, for the years 1997 to 2001 inclusive, the estimated cost of uninsured driving was £1,280 million. This is a running figure that includes cases arising from accidents that happened (and were settled) during those years and accidents occurring in previous years but only settled in those years.

  For the year 2002 the resulting increase in each motorist's insurance premium is estimated at between £15 and £30, however no figures are available for previous years.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Age Discrimination
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps his Department is taking to address the issue of age discrimination. [109448]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Northern Ireland Office aims to ensure that its staff are treated fairly and equally by promoting equal opportunities policies whereby no employee or job applicant is unfairly discriminated against either directly or indirectly on a number of grounds, including age. All staff are provided with a copy of this policy.

  In addition, in compliance with its statutory duty under section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998, the Department has due regard to the promotion of equality of opportunity between persons in nine specified categories, which include persons of different ages. Both internal and outward focused policies and practices are screened to ensure that they do not have an adverse impact on any of the nine categories, including those of different ages.

  None of the Department's policies has age restrictions except in relation to retirement. Since 4 October 2002, Northern Ireland Civil Servants employed in the Northern Ireland Office have had the option of remaining in post up to the age of 65, subject to
  338W
  satisfactory performance and attendance. For Home Civil Service staff working in the Northern Ireland Office, the subject of retirement age is under review. Staff were made aware of the change of policy by means of a general circular issued on that date.

  For Home Civil Service staff working in the Northern Ireland Office, the subject of retirement age is under consideration.

  The 11 Departments within the Northern Ireland Administration refer the hon. Member to their answer to the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Dodds) on 18 March 2003, Official Report, column 650W.

  Asylum Seekers
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many asylum seekers are living in(a) Northern Ireland and (b) Belfast, South. [119668]

  Beverley Hughes
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information is not available in the form requested.

  The availability of information on the location of asylum seekers in the UK is currently linked to the support the asylum seeker receives. Asylum seekers in the UK either receive support from the National Asylum Support Service (NASS), local authorities or the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), or are supporting themselves.

  At the end of March 2003, 1901 asylum seekers (including dependants) were being supported in NASS accommodation in Northern Ireland, of whom 1501 were resident in Belfast. Figures are not currently available for Belfast, South.

  At the end of March 2003, 251 asylum seekers (including dependants) were in receipt of subsistence-only support in Northern Ireland, of whom fewer than 20 were resident in Belfast. Figures are not currently available for Belfast, South.

  No information is held centrally on the location of residence of asylum seekers supported by DWP or who support themselves.

  1 Figures have been rounded to nearest five. These figures exclude cases where support has been ceased.

  Departmental Underspend
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much of the underspend by Departments in Northern Ireland for the year ending 31 March 2002 will not be carried forward to the next financial year. [119045]

  Mr. Pearson
  The full amount of end-year flexibility (EYF) that Northern Ireland is entitled to carry forward from 2001–02 is being retained under the normal arrangements. Underspends to be carried forward into 2002–03 in respect of 2001–02 were originally based on an estimate of departmental spend made in the early summer of 2002. This has subsequently been revised to take account of actual departmental spend in 2001–02 and will be drawn down in 2003–04, subject to agreement by the Treasury.
  339W
  Of the actual underspend by Northern Ireland Departments for 2001–02, some amounts were outside the EYF arrangements: resources of £3.6 million in respect of the Interconnector scheme were not carried forward into future years. This was a specific ring-fenced and time-bounded scheme where the original allocation was not required in full. In addition, resources of –9.9 million in respect of the EU Peace and Reconciliation Programme I (EUPRP I) were not carried forward into future years. Due to changes in the Sterling/Euro exchange rates and other technicalities during the life of the Programme, these resources were not required to secure the full draw-down of eligible funding from Brussels.

  Under Treasury rules, some Reserve claims have to be deducted from the following year's end-year flexibility (EYF): in respect of 2001–02, amounts of £1.9 million had to be treated in that way. Also, as had been agreed following the 2000 Spending Review (SR 2000), the EYF claim was abated by an amount of £22.1 million to correct an over-allocation which arose in SR 2000. These had been allowed for in the planning of budgets and did not affect departmental budgets.

  Efficiency Savings
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the target is for efficiency savings in 2003–04 expressed(a) in money terms and (b) as a percentage of the Department's expenditure limit. [114112]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Within the Northern Ireland Office the efficiency target, built into last year's Spending Review outcome, requires the Department to continue to secure 2.5 per cent. efficiency savings annually in our core departmental administration costs. These core costs of £57.6 million represent 34 per cent. of the department's total administration cost limit.

  Within the 11 Departments of the Northern Ireland Administration the 2003–04 spending plans do not contain specific efficiency savings targets expressed in money terms or as a percentage of departmental expenditure limits. However, the drive to achieve greater efficiency is evidenced by the ongoing development and refinement of Public Service Agreements and Service Delivery Agreements. In addition, the key aim of the reform agenda and Departmental Reform Plans is to improve performance in terms of delivering better quality services to the public.

  All spending programmes and projects also remain subject to the completion of satisfactory scrutiny and analysis in respect of their value for money.

  Northern Ireland Civic Forum
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what costs were incurred by the Northern Ireland Civic Forum in the last 12 months; and how many times the body met during the same period. [116978]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I refer the hon. Lady to the answer I gave to question reference 100724. Since providing this answer, an additional £18,535 administration costs were met in 2002–03 for actions carried out by the Civic Forum prior to suspension.
  340W
  The Civic Forum met on three occasions in plenary format during the period April 2002 to 14 October 2002.

  Pay Audits
  Angela Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland 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. [117432]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  An Equal Pay Review has been carried out by the Northern Ireland Office in respect of the Department and its agencies in order to identify any gender pay gap. The findings are currently being considered by the unions and we aim to finalise it in July 2003.

  The Equal Pay Review only examined gender pay. In parallel with this Review, we separately examined performance ratings of women, ethnic minorities and people with disabilities to measure any disadvantage in the operation of the performance management system.

  A copy of the action plan will be placed in the Library of the House once internal discussions are complete.

  The 11 Departments within the Northern Ireland Administration carried out a review of its pay and grading arrangements in 1998, which examined the gender gap between administrative grades, that are majority female, and professional and technical grades, that are predominantly male. We are in the process of implementing a programme of work arising from the review and this will be complete by April 2004. The need for a further equal pay audit that will also include other groups covered by section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 is currently under consideration.

  Peace II European Initiative
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on progress on funding for organisations under the Peace II European Initiative in North Belfast. [119038]

  Mr. Pearson
  No projects were funded during 2001. However, during 2002, 71 projects with a total value of £8 million were allocated funding under the Peace II Programme in the North Belfast area and 12 projects with funding of £1.5m have been approved in 2003 to date. The information relates to projects that have been allocated funding with a postal address in the North Belfast Parliamentary Constituency. Where the project address is incomplete, further analysis has been carried out on the applicant address. The figures, therefore, have been produced by first including those projects with a project address in Belfast North and then adding those where the project address is incomplete but the applicant address is in Belfast North. However, where it is apparent that the benefit of the project clearly falls outside North Belfast, these amounts have been excluded. Also, the impacts of any project may extend beyond the geographical location of the project itself.

  Reform and Reinvestment Initiative
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the interest rate for borrowings is under the Reform and Reinvestment Initiative; and what the interest rate for PPP projects is. [119041]

  Mr. Pearson
  The Reinvestment and Reform Initiative (RRI) is about tackling Northern Ireland's infrastructure deficit and improving and reforming public services. As part of the RRI, there is the power to access borrowing from the National Loans Fund (NLF). The Public Works Loans Board (PWLB) is the statutory body that facilitates all lending from the NLF and they publish the interest rates through their website on a daily basis (www.pwlb.gov.uk). The interest rate on any loan will be dictated by the prevailing rate at the time it is drawn down.

  It is not appropriate to consider PPP projects as borrowing by the public sector. Rather, the PPP approach allows additional resources to be levered in from the private sector sooner than is possible under conventional procurement, with additional benefits in terms of value for money and efficiency. While the cost of capital for the private sector may be higher than borrowing from Treasury, this is mitigated by other cost, risk and service advantages inherent in the approach. Value for money over the lifetime of the contract is the key concept.

  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether water charges are included for the purposes of determining convergence with local taxation in Great Britain under the Reform and Reinvestment Initiative. [119043]

  Mr. Pearson
  Yes.

  Reform of Public Administration
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made on the review called Reform of Public Administration. [119044]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Review of Public Administration (RPA) was initiated by the Northern Ireland Executive in June 2002. The original work programme for the review envisaged final decisions being taken by the Executive in December 2003. The suspension of the Northern Ireland Assembly has, however, affected this timetable. The RPA has continued with its scheduled programme of engagement, research and study visits, but I decided earlier this year not to go out to public consultation in advance of the elections to the Assembly, then scheduled for 29 May 2003. I am currently examining the options for the future conduct of the Review and intend to make an announcement in the near future.

  Strategic Investment Board
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland who has been appointed to the Strategic Investment Board; and what the terms of their appointments are. [119040]
  342W
  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Five Directors have been appointed to the Strategic Investment Board. They are Mr. Tony Watson, Mr. James Stewart, Mr. Greg Sparks, Mr. Nigel Hamilton and Mr. Andy Carty. Mr. Watson has, additionally, been appointed as Chairman.

  The Directors have been appointed for a three-year period while the Chairman has been appointed for one year.

  Website Access
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the actions he(a) has taken and (b) is taking to ensure that the websites of his Department, its Agencies and non-departmental public bodies are accessible to partially sighted and blind people; and if he will make a statement. [118842]

  Mr. Pearson
  The Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland Departments, together with their Agencies and NDPBs, have:

  (a) been following best practice as set down by the Office of the eEnvoy in the Cabinet Office, which requires adherence to international standards. These standards have ensured that pages on departmental websites can be read by 'screen reader' software, 'screen magnification' software or other assistive technologies which are commonly used by blind and partially sighted people; and

  (b) during the current year, the Northern Ireland Civil Service (NICS) will condense available guidance into a practical guide for designers that will ensure even greater consistency of approach. This work will include consultation with recognised disability interest groups such as RNIB. The planned introduction of web content management software by Departments will facilitate the conversion of site content for specialist devices.

  Unsolved Murders
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many persons lost their lives in conflict-related incidents in each year since 1973 and were the subject of a murder investigation conducted by the police; how many murders in each year were eventually the subject of a successful prosecution; and how many unsolved murders remain from each year. [118960]

  Jane Kennedy
  The information cannot be provided in the format requested. Table A provides the number of murders for each year since 1973 and the number of these murders where persons have subsequently been charged. Table B provides the number of convictions for murders in each year since 1993. We are unable to provide data prior to 1993 as to do so would require a substantial manual exercise and would incur a disproportionate cost.
  343W

  Table A: Security situation statistics for Northern Ireland, 1973–9 June 2003

  Number of persons murdered

  Murders for which persons have been charged

  1973

  200

  65

  1974

  187

  76

  1975

  221

  101

  1976

  266

  107

  1977

  100

  47

  1978

  70

  30

  1979

  108

  38

  1980

  65

  25

  1981

  83

  35

  1982

  85

  39

  1983

  67

  29

  1984

  49

  10

  1985

  48

  20

  1986

  55

  7

  1987

  82

  20

  1988

  84

  30

  1989

  57

  20

  1990

  68

  19

  1991

  88

  27

  1992

  79

  23

  1993

  82

  35

  1994

  61

  18

  1995

  9

  2

  1996

  14

  5

  1997

  20

  9

  1998

  54

  11

  1999

  7

  2

  2000

  18

  3

  2001

  16

  4

  2002

  12

  1

  20031

  7

  1

  Total

  2,362

  859

  1 To 9 June

  Note:

  Statistics for 2002 and 2003 are provisional and may be subject to minor adjustment.

  Table B: Victims of murders linked to the security situation: Number of instances where murder or other convictions have been secured by year of incident 1993–20021

  Number of victims where person (s) have been convicted of murder

  Person(s) have been convicted of lesser offence2

  1993

  24

  2

  1994

  7

  6

  1995

  1

  0

  19963

  0

  2

  1997

  4

  0

  1998

  6

  1

  1999

  0

  1

  2000

  1

  3

  20014

  0

  1

  2002

  0

  0

  Total

  43

  16

  1 Figures relate to cases where police have initially charged at least one suspect with murder. All cases have been heard in Belfast crown court in a Diplock trial.

  2 For example, manslaughter, conspiracy to murder, aiding and abetting murder etc.

  3 Suspect(s) have been committed for trial with respect to a further two victims—case pending.

  4 Suspect(s) have been committed for trial with respect to a further victim—case pending

DEFENCE

  Armed Forces Pension Scheme
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what differences there are between the death-in-service gratuities payable under the armed forces pension scheme and those payable in similar circumstances to members of the Brigade of Gurkhas; and if he will make a statement. [119685]

  Mr. Caplin
  The death-in-service gratuity paid under the armed forces pension scheme varies according to whether or not the death is considered attributable to, or aggravated by, service. If the death is considered non-attributable, a tax-free basic death-in-service lump sum is payable, this is approximately equivalent to the individual's representative annual rate of pay. If the death is considered attributable to service, in addition to the basic death-in-service lump sum, a tax-free attributable gratuity is also payable; this increases the overall rate of death-in-service benefit to between one and 1½ times the individual's representative annual rate of pay.

  The pension and gratuity arrangements for Gurkha soldiers, which are different to those of the armed forces pension scheme, stem from the 1947 Tri-partite Agreement and are linked to Indian Army rates. An examination of these arrangements in 1999 resulted in substantially increased pension payments for all British Gurkha pensioners and enhanced gratuity provision in the event of death in service.

  Similar to the wider Army, the death-in-service gratuity payable to a Gurkha varies according to whether or not the death is considered attributable to, or aggravated by, service. If death-in-service is attributable then the Death-in-Service Gratuity payable to a Gurkha is the same as that paid to the equivalent rank in the wider British Army. If a death in service is not attributable, the normal provisions of the Gurkha pension and gratuities scheme apply, and the death element of the Death Cum-Retirement Gratuity is payable.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to announce the outcome of the reviews of the war pensions and armed forces pensions scheme. [120003]

  Mr. Caplin
  I expect to announce the outcome of the reviews of the armed forces pension and compensation arrangements before the summer recess.

  Iraq
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what military assets, including personnel, in Iraq are being applied to provide medical treatment for Iraqi civilians; and for how long they will remain in place. [110760]

  Mr. Caplin
  United Kingdom forces are required to provide, within their means and capabilities, medical treatment to Iraqi civilians. This ranges from emergency treatment conducted by any UK soldier, all of whom are trained in first aid, to more advanced emergency treatment at one of the four Regimental Aid Posts, to life saving surgery at the UK Field Hospital at Shaibah,
  345W
  southern Iraq. In addition, 1 Close Support Medical Regiment, consisting of approximately 250 personnel, is deployed across southern Iraq to provide an emergency first aid and ambulance capability.

  UK forces will provide medical treatment for as long as they remain in Iraq, although it is envisaged that reliance upon UK forces' medical capabilities will be reduced as Iraq's civilian medical infrastructure continues to improve.

  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what tonnage of unexploded ordnance used in the recent invasion of Iraq has been cleared up by UK-funded operations. [118024]

  Mr. Ingram
  More than 87,000 items of unexploded ordnance and explosive ordnance and 79,000 rounds of small arms ammunition, mostly of Iraqi origin, were destroyed between the cessation of hostilities and 8 June 2003. We do not record the tonnage destroyed.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the capacity of British medical assets in Iraq to deal with the needs of the Iraqi people. [119323]

  Mr. Caplin
  The vast majority of injured Iraqis have been treated at Iraqi hospitals, and in the United Kingdom's area of operations we have made every effort to restore power, water and medical supplies to those facilities. All of the major hospitals in Baghdad and Basra are now functioning.

  However, where certain specialist skills have been required, Iraqis have been treated in UK medical facilities. In the very small number of cases where the necessary medical capabilities are not available in theatre, those Iraqis have been airlifted to UK hospitals for treatment. We will continue to provide medical treatment where possible for as long as UK forces remain in Iraq, although the requirement to do so will reduce over time as Iraq's civilian medical infrastructure continues to improve.

  Democratic Republic of the Congo
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what role DSACEUR will play in EU operations in the Congo region. [119103]

  Mr. Ingram
  As envisaged at the Nice European Council in 2000, operational planning for EU-led operations without recourse to NATO assets and capabilities will be carried out within one of the strategic level headquarters available to the EU. As framework nation for the deployment in the Democratic Republic of Congo, France is providing the Operation Headquarters in Paris which will be augmented by officers from participating nations including from the United Kingdom. NATO will be kept informed of the general progress of the operation.

  Consultants
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what the(a) maximum and (b) average length of deployment is of TA consultants serving in the Defence Medical Service; and if he will make a statement; [118796]
  346W
  (2) what the (a) maximum and (b) average length of deployment is of consultants serving in the Defence Medical Service; and if he will make a statement. [118795]

  Mr. Caplin
  [holding answer 12 June 2003]: Currently, we aim to deploy consultants in the Defence Medical Services (DMS) for no more than three months in any 12 month period. However, in some operational circumstances, this may not always be possible. In addition, under the terms of the Reserve Forces Act 1996, Reservists cannot be deployed for more than 12 months in any three years, unless they volunteer otherwise, and in the case of consultants their deployment patterns would be in line with that of their Regular counterparts.

  Information on the average length of deployment for consultants serving in the DMS is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Defence Attachés
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 15 May 2003,Official Report, column 329W, on defence attachés, how many defence attachés are in place in each of the locations listed. [118656]

  Mir. Caplin
  A total of 128 UK defence attachés/ advisers are currently deployed in 82 locations as follows:

  Country

  City

  Number of attachés at post

  Albania

  Tirana

  1 Army

  Angola

  Luanda

  1 Army

  Argentina

  Buenos Aires

  2 (1 Army, 1 RAF)

  Australia

  Canberra

  2(1 RN, 1 RAF)

  Austria

  Vienna

  1 Army

  Bahrain

  Manama

  1 RN

  Barbados

  Bridgetown

  1 RN

  Belgium

  Brussels

  1 RAF

  Brazil

  Brasilia

  2(1 RN, 1 Army)

  Brunei

  Bandar Seri Begawan

  1 RN

  Bulgaria

  Sofia

  2(1 RN, 1 Army)

  Canada

  Ottawa

  2(1 RN, 1 Army)

  Chile

  Santiago

  1 Army

  China

  Beijing

  2(1 Army, 1 RAF)

  Colombia

  Bogota

  1 Army

  Congo DRC

  Kinshasa

  1 Army

  Croatia

  Zagreb

  1 Army

  Cyprus

  Nicosia

  1 Army

  Czech Republic

  Prague

  2 (1 Army, 1 RAF)

  Denmark

  Copenhagen

  1 RN

  Egypt

  Cairo

  2(1 RN, 1 Army)

  Ethiopia

  Addis Ababa

  1 Army

  Finland

  Helsinki

  1 Army

  France

  Paris

  3 (1 RN, 1 Army, 1 RAF)

  Georgia

  Tbilisi

  1 RAF

  Germany

  Berlin

  4 (1 RN, 2 Army, 1 RAF)

  Ghana

  Accra

  1 Army

  Greece

  Athens

  2(1 RN, 1 Army)

  Guatemala

  Guatemala City

  1 Army

  Hungary

  Budapest

  2(1 Army, 1 RAF)

  India

  New Delhi

  2(1 Army, 1 RAF)

  Indonesia

  Jakarta

  1 Army

  Ireland

  Dublin

  1 Army

  Israel

  Tel Aviv

  2(1 Army, 1 RAF)

  Italy

  Rome

  3(1 RN, 1 Army, 1 RAF)

  Jamaica

  Kingston

  1 Army

  Japan

  Toky

  1 RN

  Jordan

  Amman

  2(1 Army, 1 RAF)

  Kazakhstan

  Almaty

  1 Army

  Kenya

  Nairobi

  1 Army

  Korea

  Seoul

  2(1 Army, 1 RAF)

  Kuwait

  Kuwait City

  1 Army

  Latvia

  Riga

  1 Army

  Lebanon

  Beirut

  1 Army

  Lithuania

  Vilnius

  1 Army

  Macedonia

  Skopje

  1 Army

  Malaysia

  Kuala Lumpur

  2(1 RN, 1 Army)

  347W

  Country

  City

  Number of attachés at post

  Morocco

  Rabat

  1 Army

  Nepal

  Kathmandu

  1 Army

  Netherlands

  The Hague

  1 RN

  New Zealand

  Wellington

  1 Army

  Nigeria

  Abuja

  1 Army

  Norway

  Oslo

  1 Army

  Oman

  Muscat

  2(1 RN, 1 Army)

  Pakistan

  Islamabad

  2(1 RN, 1 Army)

  Philippines

  Manila

  1 Army

  Poland

  Warsaw

  2(1 Army, 1 RAF)

  Portugal

  Lisbon

  1 RN

  Qatar

  Doha

  1 RAF

  Romania

  Bucharest

  2(1 Army, 1 RAF)

  Russia

  Moscow

  6(2 RN, 2 Army, 2 RAF)

  Saudi Arabia

  Riyadh

  3(1 RN, 1 Army, 1 RAF)

  Serbia and Montenegro

  Belgrade

  1 Army

  Sierra Leone

  Freetown

  1 Army

  Singapore

  Singapore

  2(1RN, 1 RAF)

  Slovak Republic

  Bratislava

  2(1 Army, 1 RAF)

  Slovenia

  Ljubljana

  1 Army

  South Africa

  Pretoria

  2(1 Army, 1 RAF)

  Spain

  Madrid

  2(1RN, 1 RAF)

  Sri Lanka

  Colombo

  1 Army

  Sweden

  Stockholm

  1 RAF

  Switzerland

  Berne

  1 Army

  Syria

  Damascus

  1 Army

  Thailand

  Bangkok

  1 Army

  Turkey

  Ankara

  2(1 Army, 1 RAF)

  Uganda

  Kampala

  1 Army

  Ukraine

  Kyiv

  2(1 RN, 1 Army)

  United Arab Emirates

  Abu Dhabi

  1 Army

  USA

  Washington

  8(3 RN, 3 Army, 2 RAF)

  Uzbekistan

  Tashkent

  1 Army

  Venezuela

  Caracas

  1 RN

  Zimbabwe

  Harare

  1 Army

  There are a total of four officers (two RN, two RAF) employed in Canada, Russia, India and USA as office managers; these are not accredited diplomatic posts.

  Executive Agencies
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people work for the Hydrographic

  1 April 1997

  1 April 1998

  1 April 1999

  Defence agency

  Service

  Civilian

  Service

  Civilian

  Service

  Civilian

  Defence Analytical Services Agency

  *

  115

  *

  117

  *

  103

  Defence Bills Agency

  *

  654

  *

  677

  *

  640

  Defence Dental Agency

  629

  111

  688

  135

  715

  151

  Defence Vetting Agency

  *

  54

  *

  341

  *

  338

  Pay and Personnel Agency

  *

  898

  *

  850

  *

  675

  Queen Victoria School

  *

  69

  *

  68

  *

  68

  Grand total

  629

  1,901

  688

  2,188

  715

  1,975

  1 April 2000

  1 April 2001

  1 April 2002

  Defence agency

  Service

  Civilian

  Service

  Civilian

  Service

  Civilian

  Defence Analytical Services Agency

  *

  120

  *

  129

  *

  145

  Defence Bills Agency

  *

  601

  *

  585

  *

  581

  Defence Dental Agency

  746

  171

  —

  —

  *

  158

  Defence Vetting Agency

  *

  355

  *

  344

  *

  262

  Pay and Personnel Agency

  *

  628

  *

  647

  *

  665

  Queen Victoria School

  *

  69

  *

  71

  *

  70

  Grand total

  746

  1,944

  *

  1,776

  *

  1,881

  Notes:

  1. Civilian figures are in respect of permanent full and part-time staff, i.e. casual staff are excluded.

  2. Civilian figures include values for part-time staff proportionate to those of full-time staff.
  348W
  Office; how many are employed in Scotland; what the personnel costs of the agency are; and how these figures compare to 2002. [119274]

  Mr. Caplin
  The average number of staff employed by the United Kingdom Hydrographic Office during the Financial Year ended 31 March 2003 was 940 compared with 907 in the previous year. The numbers include permanent and temporary staff and Service personnel. There are four staff employed at the Chart Maintenance Unit, Faslane, this is unchanged from 2002. The increase in numbers during the year ended 31 March 2003 primarily reflects the recruitment of additional trainee chart compilation personnel in anticipation of the future retirement of significant numbers of experienced staff.

  The personnel costs of the agency were £28.2 million during the Financial Year ended 31 March 2003 and £26.7 million in the previous year.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence who the top level budget holder owner has been of each of his Department's agencies since financial year 1997£98. [119625]

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

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many full-time equivalent(a) military and (b) civilian staff were employed in the (i) Defence Analytical Services Agency in financial years 1997–98 to 2001–02, (ii) Defence Bills Agency in financial years 1997–98 to 2001–02, (iii) Defence Dental Agency in financial year 1997–98, (iv) Defence Vetting Agency in financial years 1997–98 to 2001–02, (v) Pay and Personnel Agency in financial years 1997–98 to 2001–02 and (vi) Queen Victoria School in financial years 1997–98 to 2001–02. [119626]

  Mr. Caplin
  The requested information is shown in the following tables:
  349W
  3. Service personnel figures are for UK Regular Forces and include both trained and untrained personnel. They exclude Gurkhas, full-time Reserve Service personnel, The Home Service battalions of the Royal Irish Regiment, mobilised reservists are Naval Activated Reservists.

  4. Figures are individually rounded and may not sum precisely to the totals shown.

  5. * not applicable.

  6. — not available.

  Fylingdales
  Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether anti-ballistic missiles will be located in the UK once the Fylingdales radar base has been upgraded. [120178]

  Mr. Hoon
  The upgrade of the radar at RAF Fylingdales does not of itself commit the United Kingdom Government to the acquisition or deployment of a missile defence system, and no such decision has been taken. The United States has not made any request to site interceptor missiles in the UK as part of its missile defence system.

  Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost of upgrading the Fylingdales radar base will be; and what contribution to the upgrade the UK will be required to make. [120179]

  Mr. Hoon
  The cost of the upgrade, including the installation of new equipment, will be met by the United States. The United Kingdom will continue to operate and support the radar. The upgrade is expected to have a minimal effect on these running costs, which are of the order of £20 million per annum.

  Gurkhas
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will place in the Library(a) background papers, interim reports and the final report from the 1997 and 1999 Ministry of Defence reviews of the terms and conditions of service for Gurkhas, on pay and pensions, and (b) the Gurkha Pay and Pensions Manual. [119684]

  Mr. Caplin
  I will write to my hon. Friend in due course and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Army (as at 1 May 2003)

  Soldier Arm/Service

  Trained Strength

  Liability

  Shortfall

  Shortfall (percentage)

  Royal Corps of Signals

  7,601

  7,805

  -204

  -2.6

  Royal Logistic Corps

  13,184

  14,711

  -1,527

  -10.4

  Royal Army Medical Corps

  1,810

  1,999

  -189

  -9.5

  Corps of Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers

  8,751

  9,850

  -1,099

  -11.2

  Queen Alexandra's Royal Army Nursing Corps

  445

  651

  -206

  -31.6

  Note:

  Army figures are for Soldiers.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to resume nuclear testing(a) to measure nuclear warhead stockpile stability and (b) to produce new design of nuclear weapons. [119549]

  Mr. Caplin
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the armed forces on 11 June 2003,Official Report, column 917W, to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson).

  Official Spelling
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy that all official(a) correspondence, (b) reports and (c) documentation from his office uses the English spelling of words where this differs from the US version. [118867]

  Mr.Caplin
  The Ministry of Defence adheres to the guidance produced by the Cabinet Office on the handling of ministerial and other correspondence which emphasises that appropriate arrangements should be in place to ensure that the quality of all replies is high. Similarly, we subscribe to the Cabinet Office guidance on plain written English. Departmental publications are prepared in line with the Guidance on the Work of the Government Information and Communication Service.

  The MOD supports and promotes the principles of plain English. We have in recent years won six awards for examples of good, clear written work in the Plain English Campaign's annual Government-wide "Inside Write" competition, claiming prizes in each of the last four competitions.

  Service Manning
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the critical manning groups which have been identified in(a) the Army and (b) the RAF; and what the shortfall against requirement was in each case. [119450]

  Mr. Caplin
  The critical manning groups identified in the Army and the RAF are shown in the following tables:
  351W

  RAF (as at I May 2003)

  Branch/Trade

  Trained Strength

  Requirement

  Shortfall

  Shortfall (percentage)

  Aircrew Officers

  JO (Weapons Systems Officer)

  660

  733

  -73

  -10

  Non-commissioned Aircrew

  Weapons Systems Operator (Air Electronics)

  430

  476

  -46

  -10

  Weapon System Operator (Linguist)

  39

  58

  -19

  -33

  Ground Branch officers

  Medical Officers

  187

  266

  -79

  -30

  Princess Mary's RAF Nursing Sendee

  117

  142

  -25

  -18

  Electrical Trades

  Gen Tech E

  578

  661

  -83

  -13

  Medical Trades

  Nurses

  270

  308

  -38

  -12

  Technicians

  113

  129

  -16

  -12

  Motor Transport (MT) Driver

  1,171

  1,300

  -129

  -10

  MT Technician/Mechanic

  394

  478

  -84

  -18

  Medical Assistant

  288

  350

  -62

  -18

  Chef

  645

  731

  -86

  -12

  Note:

  For the RAF critical has been defined as a deficit of 10 per cent. or more.

  US Bases (Protesters)
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what rules of engagement apply to(a) the American National Guard and (b) the US security police personnel concerning protesters found on bases in the UK. [119500]

  Mr. Ingram
  It is not our practice to comment on Rules of Engagement and that information is withheld under Exemption 1 (Defence, Security and International Relations) of Part II of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Royal Residences
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport who owns Clarence House. [115780]

  Estelle Morris
  Clarence House, as part of St James' Palace, is held by the Queen as sovereign on behalf of the nation.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport pursuant to the answer to the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) of 16 December 2003,Official Report, column 531W, if she will list the redecoration and refurbishment work at Clarence House, including amounts paid for materials and labour. [115834]

  Estelle Morris
  Clarence House has not been subject to substantial refurbishment for 55 years, with most of the expenditure on the residential and office areas being required irrespective of who occupies it.

  A works total of £3.2 million excluding VAT is being spent from the grant-in-aid on the redecoration and refurbishment works at Clarence House. These include:
  352W

  Work carried out

  Total cost (£ thousand)

  General builders work

  445

  Mechanical services and plumbing

  428

  Electrical services

  410

  Internal decoration

  373

  Specialist finished

  250

  Fire protection

  150

  Asbestos removal

  110

  Catering equipment

  96

  Scaffolding—Internal and external

  85

  Carpentry

  80

  Service lift and shaft

  72

  Removal of redundant services

  64

  External decoration

  60

  Window refurbishment

  54

  Cleaning and repairs

  24

  Structural steelwork

  19

  Replacement of roof lights

  13

  Total of redecoration and refurbishment works

  2,733

  Construction manager's fees, services and site facilities relating to this work

  512

  Total

  3,245

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport pursuant to the answer to the right hon. Member for Swansea, West (Mr. Williams) of 16 December 2003,Official Report, column 531W, if she will list the items to be moved as part of the spending allocated to Clarence House for removing, storing and reinstating contents. [115835]

  Estelle Morris
  The entire contents of Clarence House were removed by 19 removal lorries so that building works could take place. The items removed comprised domestic furniture, paintings, drawings and china.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport who authorised the refurbishment and redecoration works at Clarence House, and on what date. [115836]
  353W
  Estelle Morris
  The refurbishment of Clarence House has been included for some years in the royal household's five-year maintenance plan approved by the Department. The royal household continues to keep the Department informed regularly of the cost and progress of the refurbishment.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport with whom the contents of Clarence House are insured; how much this costs per annum; and whether the cost is met by the civil list. [115837]

  Estelle Morris
  The Royal Collection insures the items that it owns against damage but not loss. None of the insurance costs for Clarence House were met from the Civil List.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the inhabitants of Clarence House in each year from 1997 to date. [115838]

  Estelle Morris
  Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother and a number of her personal staff lived in Clarence House between 1997 and Easter 2002. Much of it was used as offices for HM Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother's household. Since that date the House has been unoccupied.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what has been the total rental income received from inhabitants of Clarence House from 1997 to date. [115839]

  Estelle Morris
  There has been no rental income received from inhabitants of Clarence House.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport whether the sums allocated to professional fees in respect of refurbishment and redecoration of Clarence House have been placed following a process of competitive tendering. [115840]

  Estelle Morris
  All professional fees over £5,000 in respect of refurbishment and redecoration of Clarence House, which were paid for out of Grant-in-aid, were tendered competitively.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport who decides the annual allocation of funds provided through the grant-in-aid. [115779]

  Estelle Morris
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State decides on the level of grant-in-aid for the Occupied Royal Palaces as part of the regular spending reviews. Historic Royal Palaces (HRP) are responsible for the maintenance of the Unoccupied Royal Palaces. The HRP receive no grant-in-aid.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the annual sum provided to the grant-in-aid has been in each year from 1979 to date. [115781]

  Estelle Morris
  Grant-in-aid has been paid since 1991 when the Royal Household took over day-to-day responsibility for property services for the occupied royal palaces in England. The figures are as follows:354W

  Financial year

  Annual amount (£ thousand)

  1991–92

  23,936

  1992–93

  23,159

  1993–94

  19,805

  1994–95

  20,541

  1995–96

  20,440

  1996–97

  19,609

  1997–98

  16,409

  1998–99

  15,809

  1999–2000

  15,125

  2000–01

  15,000

  2001–02

  15,500

  2002–03

  15,400

  2001–02 and 2002–03 include temporary funding of £500,000 and £400,000 respectively to enable the grant-in-aid to take over financial responsibility for the Court post office's postal and telegraph services.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps are in place to ensure moneys allocated to grant-in-aid are spent in an environmentally responsible manner. [115782]

  Estelle Morris
  The Royal Households, including representatives from The Prince of Wales' and The Duke of Edinburgh's Offices, are members of a working group with representatives from environmental organisations including Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, World Wildlife Fund and Forest Stewardship Council. The group looks at the way the Palaces can be more environmentally friendly, and at the Household's environmental policy to promote sustainability, and ensures that appropriate guidance is obtained and followed.

  The Royal Household has a policy of using timber from renewable sources for construction work. Other environmentally friendly activities include the construction of combined heat and power units at Buckingham Palace and Windsor Castle and a borehole for chilling the air-conditioning at The Queen's Gallery, Buckingham Palace.

  Community Sports Coaches
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many community sports coaches will be created under the Community Sports Coaches Scheme in(a) 2003, (b) 2004, (c) 2005 and (d) 2006. [120402]

  Mr. Caborn
  I expect the first phase of some 100 community sports coaches to be operational during the current financial year. Decisions on future phases will be made in the light of that experience. We remain committed to creating 3,000 community sports coaches to help develop sports skills across the country by 2006.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport pursuant to the statement by the Minister for Sport on 28 February 2003,Official Report, column 543, when the regulatory impact assessment was (a) prepared and (b) placed in the Library. [120722]

  Mr. Caborn
  DCMS prepared a Regulatory Impact Assessment on the National Lottery (Funding of Endowments) Private Member's Bill when it was first
  355W
  tabled. I said at the time of the Bill's Second Reading on 28 February 2003 that copies would be placed in the Libraries of both Houses, and this has now been done.

  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport pursuant to the statement on 28 February 2003 by the Minister for Sport,Official Report, column 542, if she will make available in the Library before 20 June 2003 a draft of the guidance to distributors on grants to endowment funds. [120720]

  Mr. Caborn
  I announced on 28 February 2003 that, should the National Lottery (Funding of Endowments) Bill succeed, this Department would issue guidance to distributors on this matter, and that a draft of the guidance would be made available to Peers during the Lords stages of the Bill. The guidance is currently in the process of drafting, and we will want to consult distributors before finalising the text and making it available for parliamentary scrutiny.

  Sport England
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on her Department's annual funding allocation to Sport England for(a) 2002–03, (b) 2003–04, (c) 2004–05 and (d) 2005–06. [119951]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 17 June 2003]: The Department of Culture, Media and Sport funding allocation to Sport England is shown in the following table:

  Funding allocation to Sport England

  £000

  2002–03

  181,275

  2003–04

  262,595

  2004–05

  265,775

  2005–06

  265,775

  1 Final provision.

  2 Plans.

  The allocation in 2002–03 includes £28 million funding to support the Manchester Commonwealth Games.

  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the(a) actual and (b) projected Sport England staff numbers are for (i) 2002–03, (ii) 2003–04 and (iii) 2004–05. [119958]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 17 June 2003]: Sport England's actual and projected staff numbers are:

  1 April 2002—498 (actual)

  1 April 2003—418 (actual)

  1 April 2004—240 (projected).

  Sustainable Tourism
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what initiatives her Department is taking to promote sustainable tourism in rural areas. [120193]

  Mr. Caborn
  This Department and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) have a shared interest in promoting sustainable tourism in rural areas. Accordingly, we work closely to shape policy and develop initiatives for action. In creating VisitBritain, my 356W
  Department took over the former English Tourism Council's responsibilities for promoting rural and sustainable tourism policy.

  As part of the Government's programme of tourism reform, the Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) are, from April 2003, playing a stronger part in the strategic leadership of tourism, with the Regional Tourist Boards (RTBs) as their natural delivery partners. Guidance has been issued to the RDAs on how tourism should be covered in their Corporate Plans and Regional Economic Strategies, including the development of Regional Sustainable Tourism Strategies in partnership with RTBs, and sub-regional and local tourism organisations. Advantage West Midlands (RDA) will lead this process in the West Midlands, taking into account the tourism potential of rural areas, and in 2003–04, will receive £252,000 to pass on to the Visit Heart of England Tourist Board, subject to agreed targets and objectives.

  VisitBritain's current domestic marketing campaign, "Enjoy England", will benefit rural tourism businesses that depend largely on domestic tourism.

  The Rural Enterprise Scheme (RES), part of Defra's England Rural Development Programme, provides project-based support for diversifying the rural economy. The total RES budget is £152 million (50 per cent. co-financed by EU CAP Pillar 2 money) from 2000 to 2006. Tourism and leisure projects fall under
  'encouragement for tourist and craft activities'
  and 'farm diversification'. Currently these measures have £55 million allocated. of which £12 million has been spent so far.

  Defra is promoting countryside recreation through the new statutory right of access to open countryside. The Countryside Agency is taking forward several relevant projects, such as: integrated quality management of rural tourist destinations; retaining visitor expenditure in rural areas; promoting environmentally responsible tourism businesses; promoting local produce with the Youth Hostels Association.

  Government support is not limited to direct funding for tourism. This Department alone spends some £1 billion per year, for example, on the arts, the historic environment, museums and galleries, much of which directly benefits rural tourism across the country.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Bushmeat
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to control the trade in bushmeat. [120201]

  Mr. Morley
  The trade in bushmeat in this country is controlled mainly through domestic legislation designed to protect animal and human health, although some species traded as bushmeat are also regulated under EU legislation implementing the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). Illegal imports of bushmeat are being tackled under the illegal imports Action Plan.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the European Commission's proposals for reform of the Common Agricultural Policy. [120203]

  Mr. Morley
  The UK Government have strongly supported the aims of the European Commission's proposals on reforming the Common Agricultural Policy and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is currently heavily engaged in trying to secure a deal which will benefit farmers, consumers, the environment, developing countries and world trade.

  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the likely impact of the current Common Agricultural Policy reform proposals on the number of agricultural jobs in the UK. [120202]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The European Commission's CAP reform proposals to break the link between subsidies and production would enable producers to respond more directly to market signals. This may reduce employment in direct agricultural production, while creating new opportunities from diversified land uses. We estimate that the economic benefits from such restructuring could be worth €400 million per year in the UK.

  Mr. Cawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the delegations which Ministers have met to discuss support for farmers of unsupported crops prior to the forthcoming CAP mid-term review. [118059]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  My noble Friend Lord Whitty has had regular discussions on all aspects of the CAP reform proposals with a Contact Group comprising:

  British Retail Consortium;

  Country Land and Business Association:

  Countryside Agency;

  Countryside Alliance;

  English Nature;

  Environment Agency;

  Farm Animal Welfare Council;

  Farmcare;

  Food and Drink Federation;

  Home Grown Cereals Authority;

  Institute of Grocery Distribution;

  Meat and Livestock Commission;

  National Consumer Council;

  National Farmers Union;

  National Trust;

  OXFAM;

  Rural Development Agencies;

  Royal Society for the Protection of Birds;

  Soil Association;

  Sustainable Development Commission;

  Tenant Farmers Association;

  Trade Union Congress; and

  Wildlife and Countryside Link.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has also discussed the proposals with a number of bodies represented on the Contact Group. In addition, officials have had a number of meetings with those specifically
  358W
  representing unsupported sector interests, including the Processed Vegetable Growers Association and the Blackcurrant Growers Association.

  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the effect on family outgoings of(a) farm subsidies, (b) the effect of the Common Agricultural Policy upon food costs and (c) other rural subsidies. [120192]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Farm subsidies paid through the EU budget represent £4–£5 per week for a family of four and the Common Agricultural Policy is estimated to add £5–£6 per week to family food costs.

  Rural areas will benefit from many of the nationally available subsidies.

  Fly-tipping
  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on her policy to combat fly-tipping. [120205]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government are committed to dealing with the serious and growing problem of fly-tipping.

  The Anti-social Behaviour Bill, currently before Parliament, includes measures that will help the Environment Agency and local authorities to trace and prosecute those responsible for fly-tipping.

  The Government are also considering other measures, details of which will be published later in 2003 and brought forward at the next legislative opportunity.

  GM Crops
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the progress of the GM Public Debate. [120206]

  Mr. Morley
  The debate has already been a success in terms of generating discussion about GM. The initial regional launch events were well attended and further public meetings are now being organised. People can also participate via the debate website.

  Waste Strategy
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures are planned(a) to discourage incineration of waste and (b) to encourage maximum recycling and recover. [120207]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government's Waste Strategy 2000 set national targets for the recycling or composting of at least 25 per cent. of household waste by 2005, 30 per cent. by 2010 and 33 per cent. by 2015. To underpin these national targets we have set challenging statutory recycling and composting targets for all local authorities in England.

  We encourage recycling above incineration, but incineration with energy recovery is more sustainable than landfill. We have no plans at present to discourage the use of this option, albeit that it is one option of waste management.

  Bridleways
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent representations she has received regarding the use of bridleways by(a) motorcycles and (b) four-wheel drive vehicles. [120208]

  Alun Michael
  I have received considerable representation about damage and nuisance from motorcycles and from four-wheel drive vehicles in a number of locations, but these have not been specific to bridleways. Many of the representations have focused on the damage done for instance on the Ridgeway or within Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty.

  Agricultural Shows
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the agricultural shows which will be attended by Ministers this season; and if she will make a statement on her policy with regard to ministerial visits to shows. [120197]

  Alun Michael
  A provisional list of the agricultural shows which Ministers hope to attend this season is given in the table. Attendance can be affected by a variety of factors including business in the House.

  The Secretary of State and Ministers appreciate the value of attending agricultural shows and visit as many shows as their diaries allow. As it is not possible to visit all shows seeking ministerial support a rolling programme is adopted to ensure all regions of the country are visited each year.

  Name

  Event

  Secretary of State

  Lord Whitty

  Royal Show

  Devon County Show

  Royal Cornwall Show

  East of England Show

  Royal Show

  Royal Lancashire Show

  Dairy Event

  Mr. Morley

  Royal Show

  Great Yorkshire Show

  CLA Game Fair

  Mr. Michael

  Royal Show

  New Forest & Hants County Show

  Royal International Horse Show, Hickstead

  British Equine Event, Stoneleigh

  Mr. Bradshaw

  Royal Show

  Agricultural Subsidies
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make it her policy to abolish export subsidies for agricultural produce. [119188]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The World Trade Organisation Doha Declaration commits all member countries to negotiations aimed at reductions of, with a view to phasing out, all forms of export subsidies. The Government fully support this commitment.

  Foodstuffs
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much was spent by British consumers on foodstuffs in each of the last ten years, broken down by type of foodstuff. [119158]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Estimates of the amounts spent by consumers in the UK are provided by the Office for National Statistics. A table showing consumer expenditure estimates broken by type of foodstuff is as follows.

  Consumer expenditure estimates of foodstuffs, 1992–2003

  Units: £ billion

  Total food and non-alcoholic beverages (household expenditure)

  Bread and cereals

  Meat

  Fish

  Milk, cheese and eggs

  Oils and fats

  1992

  45.7

  6.6

  10.0

  1.7

  6.2

  1.1

  1993

  47.2

  6.7

  10.7

  1.7

  6.4

  1.1

  1994

  47.9

  6.7

  10.5

  1.7

  6.5

  1.1

  1995

  49.8

  7.0

  10.7

  1.8

  6.7

  1.1

  1996

  53.0

  7.5

  11.6

  2.0

  6.9

  1.2

  1997

  53.8

  7.7

  11.8

  1.9

  6.9

  1.2

  1998

  55.2

  7.9

  11.7

  2.0

  7.0

  1.2

  1999

  56.6

  8.0

  11.9

  2.1

  7.2

  1.2

  2000

  57.7

  8.1

  12.3

  2.2

  7.5

  1.2

  2001

  60.3

  9.0

  12.2

  2.3

  7.7

  1.2

  2002

  61.7

  9.4

  12.6

  2.4

  7.6

  1.1

  Consumer expenditure estimates of foodstuffs, 1992–2002

  Units: £ billion

  Fruit

  Vegetables

  Sugar and sweet products

  Food products n.e.c.

  Coffee, tea arid cocoa

  Mineral water and soft drinks

  1992

  2.9

  6.1

  5.1

  1.1

  1.5

  3.5

  1993

  2.9

  6,2

  5.3

  1.1

  1.5

  3.6

  1994

  3.0

  6.5

  5.5

  1.1

  1.5

  3.7

  1995

  3.1

  7.2

  5.6

  1.1

  1.5

  3.9

  1996

  3.3

  7.7

  5.9

  1.2

  1.6

  4.1

  1997

  3.6

  7.6

  6.1

  1.3

  1.6

  4.3

  1998

  3.8

  7.9

  6.4

  1.3

  1.6

  4.4

  1999

  3.9

  8.2

  6.5

  1.3

  1.7

  4.6

  2000

  3.9

  8.2

  6.4

  1.3

  1.7

  4.9

  2001

  4.0

  8.5

  6.5

  1.4

  1.9

  5,7

  2002

  4.3

  8.4

  6.6

  1.4

  1.8

  6.1

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics–Consumer Trends

  IACS Payments
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many people in(a) the Bury St. Edmunds constituency, (b) Suffolk, (c) Norfolk, (d) Essex and (e) Cambridgeshire are awaiting IACS payments; and what the average waiting time for payment was in the last year for which figures are available. [120410]

  Alun Michael
  Data are not held at constituency level so there is no specific information available for the Bury St. Edmunds constituency. However, there are currently no payments outstanding for Suffolk, there are also no payments outstanding for Cambridgeshire. There is one payment outstanding in Norfolk and one in Essex under the 2002 Arable Area Payments Scheme (AAPS), both for reasons beyond the RPA's control. For 2002 main AAPS payments, the regulatory payment window ran from 16 November 2002 to 31 January 2003.
  361W
  85.88 per cent. of claims by number were paid by 8 December 2002, and 98.25 per cent. by 31 January 2003.

  Race Relations
  Angela Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what progress has been made in her Department and non-departmental public bodies on implementing the requirements of the Race Relations Amendment Act 2000; and if she will publish the results of the monitoring required by the Act. [117623]

  Alun Michael
  One of the key values of the Department is to treat everyone fairly and to encourage, value and recognise everyone's views and contributions. This applies to the public and our external customers as well as to our staff.

  Defra's draft Race Equality Scheme, published last year, covered core Defra and the two smallest Agencies, the Pesticides Safety Directorate and the Veterinary Medicines Directorate. The remaining four Defra Agencies (the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Research, the Central Science Laboratory, the Veterinary Laboratories Agency and the Rural Payments Agency) have each produced specific schemes and associated action plans.

  The draft Defra Scheme was the subject of a public consultation exercise in the autumn last year and has been revised in the light of comments received. A revised Race Equality Scheme will be published in the summer together with a report on progress of action, including the results of monitoring.

  The Departments non-departmental public bodies are expected to follow the lead of the core Department. I will write to my hon. Friend separately to provide information on the action that they are taking to respond to the general duty.

  Sustainable Development
  Mr. Roger Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what remit relating to sustainable development is required by her Department's(a) executive agencies, (b) advisory non-departmental bodies, (c) executive non-departmental bodies, (d) tribunals, (e) public corporations and (f) other bodies. [116678]

  Mr. Morley
  Central Departments and their Executive Agencies are covered by the 'Framework for Sustainable Development on the Government Estate' and the targets it contains. Departments are responsible for encouraging and developing the integration of SD into the policy and operations of their associate bodies, ie executive agencies, advisory non-departmental bodies, executive non-departmental bodies, tribunals, public corporations and other bodies.

  In the Greening Government 1st Annual Report (1999) a commitment was made to have the Cabinet Office NDPB guidance revised to include the requirement for departments to encompass SD into the remit of any new NDPBs they set up. This was done and reported in the Greening Government 2nd Annual Report (2000). A number of associate bodies set up
  362W
  before this requirement was put in place already made explicit reference to the pursuit of sustainable development in their aims/objectives or remits, an example of which is the Environment Agency.

  The Defra publication 'Our Strategy 2003–06' contains a commitment to improve the consistency with which all organisations linked to Defra focus on sustainable development objectives. This will be taken forward as part of the review of Defra's Sustainable Development Strategy, 'Foundations for Our Future', due to be undertaken this summer.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Broadband
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what discussions he has had on introducing broadband to schools on Exmoor in Somerset to comply with the Government's aim of all schools having broadband by 2005. [119611]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Prime Minister has set a target for all schools to be connected to broadband by 2006. The Department for Education and Skills is working with the Regional Broadband Consortia, LEAs and schools to ensure this target is achieved. The Department has also had a range of discussions with a number of partners including telecoms companies and other Government Departments to identify cost-effective ways of providing broadband access for schools, regardless of geographic location.

  The Department has not had discussions regarding broadband for schools on Exmoor specifically; rather, discussions have focused on ensuring all schools in the region will be effectively connected by 2006.

  Bullying
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what measures are in place(a) to prevent bullying in schools and (b) to punish those found to be harassing their peers; [119604]

  (2) what proposals he has to protect pupils found to be victims of bullying in schools; and if he will make a statement on how bullying can affect children; [119605]

  (3) what guidance he gives on when schools should consider police intervention in a case of bullying; and in what circumstances pupils may be expelled for bullying; [119606]

  (4) if he will make a statement on the protection of children from bullying while in school; and whether it is his policy that (a) victims and (b) the offender should be removed from the school. [119607]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Bullying is a serious problem that affects pupils' educational achievement and emotional well-being. All schools in England must treat the problem seriously, and are required to draw up written measures, which must be fully implemented, to prevent all forms of bullying among pupils.

  We have made available to schools a free information pack and video entitled "Bullying: Don't Suffer in Silence", which provides examples of good practice in

  363W
  preventing bullying. There is also a dedicated website at www.dfes.qov.uk/bullying, which offers help to pupils, parents and teachers and contains links to other websites. Anti-bullying work is part of our Behaviour and Attendance strategy and from this September it will feature within the new behaviour and attendance audits and training, which are being introduced into secondary schools as part of the Key Stage 3 strategy.

  Schools need to have a range of measures in place to protect their pupils—including pupils who have been bullied previously—from bullying. These are likely to include proper supervision during the school day and encouraging a culture of openness so that bullying cannot flourish unseen. Schools should do all they can to ensure that pupils do not feel they need to change school because of bullying. As far as the bullies are concerned, we have made it clear that, where necessary, those responsible for serious or prolonged bullying— including cases of violence, sexual assault or inciting racial harassment—can be permanently excluded.

  We have published guidance on the circumstances in which the police should be involved in cases of bullying in school. We encourage all schools to have effective links with the local police. The Safer School Partnerships established within our wider Behaviour and Attendance strategy, whereby police officers are based in some schools, will also help to prevent and deal with bullying.

  Criminal Records Checks
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how many enhanced checks(a) have been carried out and (b) remain to be carried out in the academic year 2002–03 by the Criminal Records Bureau on (i) teaching staff, (ii) non-teaching

  Support staff in maintained nursery, primary, middle and secondary schools special schools1 and pupil referral units in England— Full-time equivalents January of each year

  Thousands

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  20032

  Teaching assistants3

  Teaching assistants

  35.5

  38.8

  39.3

  45.3

  55.6

  57.3

  73.1

  Special needs support staff

  24.5

  26.0

  29.5

  32.4

  37.7

  46.7

  46.8

  Minority ethnic pupil support staff

  1.2

  1.5

  1.5

  2.1

  2.5

  2.5

  2.5

  Total

  61.3

  66.3

  70.3

  79.8

  95.8

  106.4

  122.3

  Administrative staff

  Secretaries

  27.6

  28.5

  29.1

  30.2

  30.6

  25.6

  24.7

  Bursars

  4.1

  4.2

  4.4

  4.7

  5.0

  4.9

  5.1

  Other admin/clerical staff

  7.5

  7.3

  7.7

  8.3

  10.7

  19.3

  20.8

  Total

  39.2

  40.1

  41.2

  43.2

  46.3

  49.8

  50.6

  Technicians

  Total

  12.7

  13.1

  13.5

  14.2

  15.0

  16.6

  18.0

  Other support staff

  Matrons/nurses/medical staff4

  1.2

  1.2

  1.2

  1.2

  1.2

  1.8

  1.7

  Child care staff (boarding schools)5

  3.4

  3.4

  3.1

  3.3

  3.2

  3.2

  0.4

  Other6

  18.7

  19.7

  22.1

  23.1

  27.4

  39.3

  32.3

  Total

  23.3

  24.4

  26.5

  27.5

  31.8

  44.2

  34.4

  Total support staff

  136.5

  143.8

  151.5

  164.7

  189.0

  217.0

  225.3

  (Total excluding nursery schools)

  134.1

  141.5

  149.0

  162.1

  186.3

  214.2

  222.4

  1 Includes non-maintained special (and special and general hospital schools).

  2 Provisional.

  3 Includes nursery assistants in nursery schools.

  4 Included with 'other' in nursery schools.

  364W
  school staff, (iii) governors and (iv) parent volunteers; and how many checks will be carried out on each category; [119426]

  (2) how many school-related local authority staff (a) have been checked and (b) remain in need of checking by the Criminal Records Bureau in the academic year 2002–03. [119437]

  Mr. Miliband
  My Department does not hold this information.

  Eco-schools
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what arrangements his Department has for the dissemination of educational information regarding environmental matters by way of the network of eco-schools in England; [118690]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the contribution made by the eco-schools programme to the delivery of the citizenship curriculum. [118691]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  We have no plans for utilising the network of Eco-Schools (run by EnCams Limited) as a dissemination mechanism for environmental education. The citizenship curriculum is deliberately flexible, allowing teachers to choose the delivery methods best suited to their pupil's needs and interests. The Eco-Schools programme is one of a number of methods schools employ to deliver citizenship.

  Education Support Staff
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many education support staff have been employed in each year since 1997; and what duties they carried out. [118256]

  Mr. Miliband
  Information on the number of support staff is shown in the table. The deployment of support staff is a matter for individual schools. No information on this deployment is available centrally.
  365W
  5 Due to a reporting problem at source, the number of child care staff has not been recorded accurately by schools, resulting in child care staff being distributed across other support staff categories.

  6 Includes: librarians, welfare assistants, learning mentors and any other support staff regularly employed in schools; matrons, nurses, other medical staff in nursery schools.

  Source:

  Annual School Census

  Efficiency Savings
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the target is for efficiency savings in 2003–04 expressed(a) in money terms and (b) as a percentage of the Department's expenditure limit. [114107]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  My Department does not have a target in the terms expressed. The Department has value for money targets arising from the Government's spending reviews in 2000 and 2002 (SR2000 & SR2002). Following SR2000, schools can now meaningfully compare costs with one another and thus improve value for money year on year. We established a framework of Consistent Financial Reporting requiring all maintained schools to report their accounts in a standardised way, which has been operational since 1 April 2003. Following SR 2002, the Department is developing a challenging target covering minimum performance and value for money in FE colleges and other post-16 providers.

  Excluded Children
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much it cost to educate excluded children through(a) pupil referral units, (b) home tuition, (c) emotional and behavioural disorder day units, (d) emotional and behavioural disorder residential units and (e) other provision for excluded children in each year since 1995. [116635]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 3 June 2003]: The information requested is not collected centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Free School Meals
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what change there has been an increase in applications for free school meals since the introduction of new rules in April. [119313]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested is not currently available. The number of pupils known to be eligible for free school meals is collected in January each year via the Annual Schools' Census. As a result, trend data on the number of pupils known to be eligible for free meals since the introduction of new rules in April 2003 will not be available until 2004.

  Hayfever
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what guidance he has issued to examining boards on the account which should be taken of the effects of hayfever on the performance of children taking public examinations. [119865]
  366W
  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Arrangements for candidates affected by personal illness are set out in The Joint Council for General Qualifications (JCGQ) document, "Regulations and Guidance for Candidates with Particular Requirements".

  Examination centres may request special consideration from awarding bodies for candidates affected by chronic hayfever during an exam where exam centres are able to provide evidence that the candidate was affected at the time of the examination.

  Modern Apprenticeships
  Rob Marris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills who the 10 largest providers of Modern Apprenticeships were in 2002–03; how many contracted places there were with each of those providers; and what the individual success rates were of each of those providers, expressed as(a) the proportion of NVQs successfully passed out of those taken and (b) the proportion of Modern Apprenticeships successfully gained out of those started. [118935]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  This is a matter for the Learning and Skills Council. John Harwood, the Council's Chief Executive, will write to my hon. Friend with the information requested and will place a copy of his reply in the Library.

  Rob Marris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when the full achievement rates for Modern Apprenticeship Frameworks for 2002–03 will be issued; and how those rates will be made available. [118939]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Data on Modern Apprenticeships are published by the Learning and Skills Council (LSC) in Statistical First Releases (SFR). The next SFR is due to be published on 24 July 2003. Current plans are that this SFR will contain Modern Apprenticeship framework completion and NVQ achievement rates for the period August 2001 to July 2002. An early indication of figures for the period August 2002 to January 2003 is also planned. Framework completion and NVQ achievement rates for the whole period from August 2002 to July 2003 will not be available until December 2003.

  Pay Audits
  Angela Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills 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. [117440]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  My Department has submitted a report on Gender Pay Equality (including an action plan) to the Cabinet Office. A copy of the report will be placed in the Library of the House, when discussions
  367W
  with Cabinet Office are concluded. Non-departmental public bodies were not required to submit an equal pay report to Cabinet Office, although many have conducted a similar audit, as best practice. It has not been possible to provide the requested information for my Department's non-departmental public bodies without incurring disproportionate cost.

  A further pay equality review, covering not only gender but also ethnicity and people with disabilities, will begin in my Department when this year's pay award has been delivered, towards the end of this year. The results will be made available on completion of the exercise.

  Prison Education
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many staff have been employed in Prison Education in each year since 1997, broken down by(a) teaching staff and (b) non-teaching staff. [119432]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  There are currently around 1,600 full-and part-time teaching staff employed in delivering education in Her Majesty's Prison Service through the education contract. This includes around 220 Learning Support Assistants, who are employed in juvenile facilities on a ratio of one to every 10 learners. We do not have figures for previous years. Each juvenile establishment has a Special Needs Co-ordinator who is responsible for the assessment of learners, drawing up specialist learning programmes, supervising Learning Support Assistants and supporting all staff on special educational needs issues. We have also appointed Heads of Learning and Skills in all juvenile facilities to coordinate learning and skills provision, and will be appointing a further 110 in adult prisons this year. Other non-teaching staff involved in prison education include Instructional Officers, Prison Officer Instructors, other prison staff and voluntary workers.

  Pupil Numbers
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list, by LEA, total pupil numbers in(a) primary and (b) secondary schools since 1990. [118769]

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

  Qualifications and Curriculum Authority
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to his Answer of 17 March 2003,Official Report, column 567W, what the average time taken for a qualification to be approved by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority following a recommendation from an awarding body is; and if he will make a statement. [120015]

  Mr. Miliband
  In 2002 it took an average of eight weeks from the submission of an NVQ by an awarding body to its accreditation by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA). Vocationally related qualifications are typically more diverse and have taken an average of 20 weeks. There have been very few general qualifications accredited over the last 18 months.
  368W
  QCA will be implementing a streamlined accreditation process in autumn 2003. This will build on proposals currently being piloted that have resulted in NVQs being accredited in six weeks and vocationally related qualifications in seven weeks.

  Research Funding
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how universities qualify for research funding; what measures are in place to ensure that funding is fairly distributed to smaller universities; and what plans he has to concentrate research funding into a smaller group of universities. [119666]

  Alan Johnson
  The Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) distributes a portion of its block grant to higher education institutions according to the quality of their research as measured by the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE), and the volume of research they carry out. This provides equitable funding to institutions of all sizes. The White Paper, "The future of higher education", set out plans to strengthen higher education research by increasing substantially the funding available, providing further support to the best research departments and institutions, promoting collaboration and encouraging and supporting promising departments and emerging subject areas. HEFCE is considering how best to implement the White Paper plans. Some institutions have seen reductions in their research funding for the coming year, typically where most of their research falls below international standards of excellence. However, the Government do not intend to restrict research funding to a particular group of universities. In the longer term funding may be affected by Sir Gareth Roberts' review of research assessment, commissioned by the higher education funding bodies. The report of that review was published for consultation last month (http://www.ra-review.ac.uk/). It recommends a more flexible system of research assessment, including different types of assessment for institutions and departments with different levels of research. As now, HEFCE would decide how to use the assessment results in funding institutions.

  School Students
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many students living in catchment areas in north-east Lincolnshire attend schools outside the north-east Lincolnshire LEA area. [120060]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested is given in the following table.

  Total number of pupils resident in north-east Lincolnshire

  Of which attend schools situated within the LEA

  Of which attend schools situated outside the LEA

  LEA

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  2003

  27,479

  26,776

  97.4

  703

  2.6

  2002

  27,466

  26,794

  97.6

  672

  2.4

  369W

  Breakdown of percentage of all pupils living in NE Lincolnshire LEA but attending schools in other LEAs

  January 2002 and 2003

  LEA name in which school attended

  1 Percentage

  January 2003

  Calderdale

  2—

  Kirklees

  2—

  City of Kingston Upon Hull

  0.1

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  2—

  North Lincolnshire

  0.1

  North Yorkshire

  2—

  Nottinghamshire

  2—

  Lincolnshire

  2.3

  January 2002

  City of Kingston Upon Hull

  0.1

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  2—

  North Lincolnshire

  0.1

  North Yorkshire

  2—

  Lancashire

  2—

  Lincolnshire

  2.3

  1 Figures may not add to overall total because of rounding

  2 Percentage below 0.1 per cent.

  Student Finance
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what help is given to school leavers who wish to attend non-university courses and apprenticeships; and what financial assistance is available to them. [119622]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  There is a range of financial support and assistance available to young people on leaving school. The Minimum Training Allowance is available for those who follow a work-based vocational route and who do not have waged status. For those continuing in learning, the Education Maintenance Allowance (EMA) is available in 56 LEA areas in England. The EMA is a weekly allowance for 16–19 year olds and will be made available nationally from September 2004.

  For those who face specific barriers there is financial support available through the Learner Support Funds. This provides help towards transport costs, books and equipment, residential allowances and help with child care. The Connexions Service provides a wide range of advice and support to young people regarding entry into further education and training. In addition, the Connexions Card enables students to collect rewards and discounts for participating in learning.

  The support arrangements for school leavers in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are a matter for the devolved administrations.

  Teachers
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate he has made of the number of(a) nursery/primary and (b) secondary school qualified teachers who are not employed in the maintained sector in each year since 1990. [118120]

  Mr. Miliband
  The following table provides the available data on qualified teachers who were not in service in the maintained schools sector in England and Wales at 31 March of each year shown. Data are not available by phase of training or for years prior to 1998.370W

  No service recorded1

  Previously in service2

  Teachers in service outside the maintained schools sector3

  1998

  84,800

  307,200

  70,800

  1999

  86,400

  304,700

  72,600

  2000

  87,700

  304,000

  74,000

  2001

  88,000

  300,200

  74,600

  1 Includes those who qualified in England or Wales who have no known service in England or Wales. Some may have entered service not recorded on the DTR, which is maintained primarily for the Teachers' Pension Scheme (TPS), e.g. in some independent schools or outside of England and Wales.

  2 Qualified teachers with some previous service in any sector in England and Wales. Includes teachers who qualified other than in England and Wales. Some teachers will return to service after career breaks.

  3 Qualified teachers in service in England and Wales outside the maintained schools sector, e.g. those in the independent sector, further or higher education sectors or miscellaneous establishments who are members of the TPS.

  Source:

  Database of Teacher Records (DTR).

  Top-up Fees
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) letters, (b) faxes, (c) phone calls, (d) e-mails and (e) petitions have been received by his Department since 2000 (i) in favour of and (ii) opposed to top-up fees. [118148]

  Alan Johnson
  The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Training
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on his strategy for the proposed increase in workplace-based learning. [117555]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  As part of the Skills Strategy we are considering how best to target the public funding of adult learning to ensure the significant investment we are making has the maximum impact in supporting adult skills, alongside investment from employers. We will set out our conclusions shortly.

  Veterinary Science
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many places for veterinary science were offered by UK universities in each of the last five years; and how many applications there were for university places in veterinary science in each of those years. [119227]

  Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 16 June 2003]: Information on the numbers of places for veterinary science is not held centrally. The Higher Education Funding Council for England has responsibility for funding the number of HE places in English HE institutions, but these places are funded in terms of four broad price groups, rather than individual subjects. The price groups recognise that some subjects, such as those that involve laboratory or workshop activities, require higher levels of resource to those that are mainly classroom based. Veterinary Science is included in highest price group along with clinical medicine and dentistry.
  371W
  The available figures for applicants and acceptances for Veterinary Science courses in the United Kingdom via the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS) are shown in the following table.

  Applicants and acceptances to full-time undergraduate courses in Veterinary Science

  Year of entry

  Applicants1

  Acceptances1

  1998

  1,790

  620

  1999

  1,800

  630

  2000

  1,760

  660

  2001

  1,610

  700

  2002

  1,600

  770

  1 Covers both home and overseas students.

  Note:

  Figures have been rounded to the nearest 10.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Correspondence
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor-General how many staff have been employed in the Ministerial Correspondence Unit of the Department in each of the last two years. [115869]

  The Solicitor-General
  A holding reply was given on 3 June 2003.

  My own Department, the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers, the Serious Fraud Office, the Treasury Solicitor's Department and HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate do not have dedicated Ministerial Correspondence Units due to the small size of the offices. Ministerial Correspondence is delegated for preparation of a response to the most appropriate person depending on the subject matter.

  The Crown Prosecution Service's Correspondence Unit deals with all Ministerial Correspondence sent to the Director, Chief Executive and the Law Officers, general correspondence from members of the public, the Public Enquiry Point and, in accordance with the third tier of the Crown Prosecution Service's Complaints Procedure, looks into all matters in which complainants remain dissatisfied with the responses received from branch and area level.

  In 2001–02, four staff were assigned to the Correspondence Unit (one Higher Executive Officer, two Executive Officers and one Administrative Officer). In the following year the number rose to five when a further part-time Higher Executive Officer joined the Unit and was given specific responsibility for third tier

  Event

  Place

  Purpose

  Date

  Cost

  National Senior Management Conference

  The Royal York Hotel, York

  To update all senior managers on progress against current plans and involve them in the development of future strategy and plans

  April 2002

  £46,150

  National Senior Management Conference

  Russell Hotel, London

  To update all senior managers on progress against current plans and involve them in the development of future strategy and plans

  July 2002

  £18,760

  National Senior Management Conference

  De Vere Garden Park, Chester

  To update all senior managers on progress against current plans and involve them in the development of future strategy and plans

  October 2002

  £47,242

  National Senior Management Conference

  Russell Hotel London

  To update all senior managers on progress against current plans and involve them in the development of future strategy and plans

  January 2003

  £32,857

  Conference of the UK

  Browns Court Room, Covent

  To provide a forum for representatives of UK

  September 2002

  £3,000

  372W
  complaints. The Correspondence Unit forms part of the Director's Private Office and the staff report to the Director's Private Secretary.

  Sally Clark
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Solicitor-General pursuant to her answer of 8 April 2003,Official Report, column 154W, whether she is now in a position to make a statement on the implications for the Crown Prosecution Service of the case of Mrs. Sally Clark. [119872]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Court of Appeal has now given its judgment in full in the case of Mrs. Sally Clark. In giving its reasons for quashing the murder convictions, the Court found the convictions were unsafe. No fault was attributed to the Crown Prosecution Service.

  The Court of Appeal focused on the non-disclosure of potentially significant evidence by Dr. Williams. It also considered the use of statistical evidence by Professor Meadow.

  The Crown Prosecution Service has already responded to the Sally Clark judgment. It is in the process of issuing guidance to all Chief Crown Prosecutors instructing them to identify cases involving either Doctor Williams or Professor Meadow and ensuring that the defence are made aware of the judgment. Such disclosure would also be applied to any future cases. The implications for previous cases involving Doctor Williams has been discussed and is still being assessed. The Crown Prosecution Service is involved, alongside other relevant agencies, in consideration of that issue.

  Departmental Events
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor-General if she will list the(a) conferences, (b) seminars, (c) workshops, (d) exhibitions and (e) other conferences sponsored by her Department and which took place on nondepartmental premises in the last 12 months, broken down by title, purpose, date and cost. [104269]

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

  The Crown Prosecution Service holds a number of events of this kind throughout the year. The Crown Prosecution Service does not keep a central record of all such events across England and Wales and could not obtain such information without incurring disproportionate cost. However, I am able to list those events that were national or international rather than local and these are shown in the table. The total cost of the 17 events for which information is held was £268,122.
  373W

  Event

  Place

  Purpose

  Date

  Cost

  Prosecuting Agencies

  Garden, London

  prosecuting agencies to share knowledge of information systems and to explore ways of closer networking

  National CPS Training conference

  Belton Woods Hotel, Grantham

  To address training issues, share ideas look at the development of trainers within the CPS

  May 2002

  £3,000

  Higher Court Advocates Conference

  Nottingham Royal Moat House

  Development of HCA's and HCA tutors

  June 2002

  £10,389

  Speaking up for Justice Conference

  Leeds Hilton

  Development of Speaking up for Justice tutors

  March 2003

  £8,345

  Victims Perspective Conference

  Bath

  Increase awareness of victims issues among CPS Staff

  April 2002

  3,000

  Victims Perspective Conference

  Belton Woods Hotel Grantham

  Increase awareness of victims issues among CPS staff

  October 2002

  £3,000

  Victims Perspective Conference

  Durham—CC

  Increase awareness of victims issues among CPS staff

  November 2002

  £3,000

  Community Engagement Seminar

  Royal Bath Hotel, Bournemouth

  To explain, promote and encourage community engagement across the CPS Areas. This was the final event of four, which had been held across the country.

  May 2002

  £8,380

  Equality and Diversity Recognition Awards Ceremony

  New Connaught Rooms, Great Queen Street, London

  Awards to celebrate the achievements of individuals, teams or groups who have incorporated equality and diversity aspects into their work within the CPS and helped to raise public confidence in the service.

  October 2002

  £17,865

  CPS Conference on Homophobic Crime and LGBT Issues

  Savill Court Hotel Egham

  To formally launch the Public Policy Statement on Homophobic Crime and associated leaflet, booklet and guidance document.

  November 2002

  £19,384

  "On the Edge of Objectivity" Reducing the Justice Gap within 'Hate' Crimes

  City Hall, Cathays Park Cardiff

  To identify mechanisms to reduce the justice gap in hate crimes.

  February 2003

  £17,750

  Proceeds of Crime Conference

  Thistle Hotel, Victoria

  To update CPS champions on progress with implementation of proceeds of crime legislation

  March 2003

  Not yet available

  National Domestic Violence Coordinators Network Conference

  Cavendish Conference Centre London

  Opportunity for Domestic Violence Co-ordinators to exchange information and promote good practice

  June 2002

  £6,000

  Human Trafficking Conference

  Eastwell Manor Ashford, Kent

  Facilitate greater cooperation between EU States and Candidate Countries and make recommendations.

  May 2002

  £20,000

  The Serious Fraud Office has not sponsored any (a) conferences, (b) seminars, (c) workshops, (d) exhibitions and (e) other conferences in the last 12 months.

  HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate endeavours to hold two staff conferences/training events each year. Their purpose is the discussion of matters of importance across the Inspectorate and also evaluating and achieving consistency in the inspection process. HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate does not have a room sufficiently big to hold the combined London/York staff at its offices and therefore the first day of each conference has been held at the Institute of Minerals. The second and third days of each conference have been held in groups and therefore accommodated within HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate premises. The cost 2002–03 was £2,902.81.

  Date

  Event

  Purpose

  Cost

  12 and 13 March 2002

  AO development course

  Self development training for administrative officers

  £2,650

  19 March 2002

  Leadership seminar

  A seminar for the staff in Bona Vacantia Division

  £1,197

  1 May 2002

  Government Legal Service conference

  To enable government lawyers to share experience and discuss common issues

  £16,0001

  15 and 16 May 2002

  AO development course

  Self development training for administrative officers

  £968

  2 and 3 July 2002

  AO development course

  See above

  £2,650

  3 September 2002

  Management Module 1

  Leading and managing people Part 1 of a 6t part management and leadership course for middle managers.

  £1,247

  20 September2002

  Management Module 2

  Part 2: managing money in Treasury Solicitor's Department

  £484

  15 October 2002

  Appreciating difference workshop

  Diversity training for HR staff and Diversity Group

  £835

  8 October 2002

  Management Module 3

  Part 3: Client and supplier management

  £489

  20 October 2002

  Management Module 4

  Part 4: Managing change and risk

  £484

  374W
  HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate is currently leading the pilot joint inspection of the Gloucestershire CJS Area. An initial meeting was held with the Shadow Local Criminal justice Board and all other interested local agencies. In the absence of other suitable accommodation, a meeting room and facilities at the St. George Hotel, Cheltenham was used. The cost was £1,610.

  The Treasury Solicitor's Department makes full use of its own facilities in its HQ building at Queen Anne's Chambers in SW1 for events that it sponsors, which are mainly staff training and internal management activities. Occasional use is made of non-departmental premises for such events where there is considered to be specific benefit and/or there is a need to do so. The events held by the Department on non-departmental premises in the last 12 months (from 1 January 2002 to 31 December 2002) are listed in the following table. These are mostly in the nature of workshops and seminars.
  375W

  Date

  Event

  Purpose

  Cost

  6 November 2002

  Management Module 5

  Part 5: Process and project management

  £580

  11/12 November 2002

  Supervisory Board Strategy meeting

  To identify the business strategy for the Agency for the following 3 years

  £5,300

  27 November 2002

  Management module 6

  Part 6: managing you own effectiveness

  £481

  1 The cost of this event was covered from the Departments of those attending.

  The figures provided include direct accommodation costs only: staff time, overheads for organising, facilitating and participating in the event are not included.

  The Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers has not sponsored any relevant meeting in the last 12 months

  Departmental Running Costs
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor-General what the running costs in 2002 were of(a) her private offices separately identifying expenditure on staff, and (b) the Attorney General's Department. [105986]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 27 March 2003]: Of all the departments for which the Attorney General holds ministerial responsibility, only the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers has a ministerial private office. The cost of the private office cannot be separately identified from the total cost of the department. The total cost of the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers for the financial year 2001–02 was £1,834,968 in staff costs and £974,974 on other expenditure.

  Discontinued Trials
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Solicitor-General if she will examine the causes behind the decision to discontinue the trials of Adrian Pasareanu, Lulezim Balliu, Alin Turcu and their two co-defendants; and if she will make a statement. [117815]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Code for Crown Prosecutors makes clear that no prosecution may be commenced unless it is believed that there is a realistic prospect of a conviction, that is that it is more likely than not that there will be a conviction. However, once a prosecution has begun, it is the duty of the prosecution to keep the prospect of conviction under constant review. If there comes a time when it is believed that there is no longer a realistic prospect of conviction, it is the duty of the prosecution to say so and to take steps accordingly.

  The Crown Prosecution Service, undertaking that process of constant review, recently received information which meant that it could no longer put forward the principal prosecution witness, Florim Gashi, as a witness of truth.

  In May 2003 the section of the CPS dealing with the kidnap received information showing that Mr. Gashi may have entrapped a Wandsworth parking attendant into criminal behaviour. The attendant also made allegations against Mr. Gashi that he had access to guns, an allegation that had also been made by one of the defendants in this case. Further, it was apparent that Mr. Gashi had lied to the police.

  This information prompted a re-review of the whole case.
  376W
  The Crown Prosecution Service was not told until three months after the arrests that Mr. Gashi had been paid for his information. Mr. Gashi had previously denied receiving more than expenses. It was only on 13 May 2003 that a News of the World employee disclosed that a cheque for £10,000 had been issued by the News of the World on 1 November 2002.

  In the light of these developments the CPS requested advice of experienced senior counsel, who advised that there was no longer a realistic prospect of a conviction. As a result the CPS took the decision not to proceed with the case.

  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Solicitor-General if she will estimate the cost, to the public purse, of the abortive trials of Adrian Pasareanu, Lulezim Balliu, Alin Turcu and their co-defendants. [117816]

  The Solicitor-General
  It is estimated that the prosecution costs in this case will be in the region of £70,000.

  This figure does not include staff or running costs, which are attributable to the operation of the Crown Prosecution Service as a whole and cannot be assessed on an individual basis.

  Document Classification
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Solicitor-General how many documents are held by the Law Officer's Departments that are subject to security classification, broken down by category of classification. [107362]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 8 April 2003]: All the Departments for which the Attorney General holds ministerial responsibly, including the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers, deal with a large number of documents subject to security classification. The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Efficiency Savings
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor-General what the target is for efficiency savings in 2003–04 expressed(a) in money terms and (b) as a percentage of the Department's expenditure limit. [114104]

  The Solicitor-General
  A holding reply was given on 20 May 2003.

  Crown Prosecution Service

  The Crown Prosecution Service does not have a specific departmental target for efficiency savings in 2003–04. One of the Spending Review 2002 PSA targets is to increase value for money from the criminal justice system by 3 per cent. a year. The Crown Prosecution Service will be contributing towards the target, which covers improvements in efficiency as well as improvements in effectiveness.
  377W
  Treasury Solicitor's Department

  The Treasury Solicitor's Department does not have specific target for efficiency savings in 2003–04.

  The majority of the Department operates as an Executive Agency recovering the costs of most of its services from Government Departments and publicly funded bodies. As a result of the Quinquenial Review of the Agency in 2001, significant management effort and resources are being focused on improving the business operations including greater efficiency. The changes under way will need to be completed in order that these improvements can be achieved.

  In 2003–04, the Department has two cost measures that serve to control expenditure:
  1. To recover from clients the full operating costs for chargeable services.
  2. To maintain corporate staff overhead at no more than 15 per cent. of total staff costs.

  HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate, Serious Fraud Office and Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers

  HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate, the Serious Fraud Office and the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers do not have targets for efficiency savings in 2003–04 although they expect, and will, continue to seek to maximise the value for money achieved in all of its expenditure.

  EU Directives
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor-General if she will list the EU Directives and Regulations which have been implemented by the Law Officers' Departments since 17 April 2002. [106823]

  The Solicitor-General
  A holding reply was given on 7 April 2003.

  None of the Departments for which the Attorney General holds ministerial responsibility have implemented any EU Directives or Regulations since 17 April 2002.

  Industrial Action
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor-General how many working days were lost owing to industrial action by staff in her Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies in 2002. [102024]

  The Solicitor-General
  A holding reply was given on 12 March 2003.

  In respect of all the departments for which the Attorney General holds ministerial responsibility, the answer is none.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Solicitor-General how many of her staff retired on medical grounds due to mental health problems in the last year. [111971]

  The Solicitor-General
  There have been two retirements within the Crown Prosecution Service on medical grounds due to mental health problems in the last year.
  378W
  There have been no retirements on medical grounds due to mental health problems in the last year in any of the other departments for which the Attorney General holds ministerial responsibility.

  Trupti Patel
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Solicitor-General how much the case against Mrs. Trupti Patel cost public funds. [119656]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 16 June 2003]: The trial of Regina v. Trupti Patel only concluded on 11 June 2003, and it is therefore not possible at this early stage to give an accurate costs figure. However, the Crown Prosecution Service estimate that their costs will be in the region of £160,000 to £170,000.

  This figure does not include staff or running costs, which are attributable to the operation of the Crown Prosecution Service as a whole and cannot be assessed on an individual basis.

  Pay Audits
  Angela Eagle
  To ask the Solicitor-General what progress has been made on completing a pay audit in her Department and its non-departmental public bodies to measure any disadvantage in terms of remuneration for(a) women, (b) ethnic minorities and (c) people with disabilities; and if she will publish the results of such an audit. [117434]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 10 June 2003]: The information is as follows:

  Crown Prosecution Service:

  The Crown Prosecution Service has undertaken an analysis of both its pay structure and the individual pay details of all its permanent staff. The detailed results are being discussed with the Departmental Trade Unions and a formal action plan will be available soon.

  While the focus of the Crown Prosecution Service's Equal Pay Review Model is on gender equality, the Department's intention is to apply it to other groups as part of a wider diversity agenda later this year. This we will be able to do more effectively given the outcomes we obtained from the current exercise.

  Serious Fraud Office:

  The Serious Fraud Office conducted its equal pay review in April 2003 and is in the process of drafting an action plan. It is proposed that a copy of the agreed action plan will be placed in the Library of the House in due course.

  Treasury Solicitor's Department and Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers:

  The Treasury Solicitor's Department has completed the review of its pay systems, encompassing women, ethnic minorities and people with disabilities. An action plan has been produced and this will be placed in the Library of the House after full consideration has been given to the issues identified. The Review covers staff in the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers.

  HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate:

  Although the pay systems for HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate differ from those of the Treasury Solicitor's Department, they fall within that budget and HM Crown Prosecution Service

  379W
  Inspectorate was therefore included as a part of the Treasury Solicitor's Department review of the pay systems encompassing women, ethnic minorities and people with disabilities. HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate is currently giving consideration to how the recommendations made following the review may impact upon it.

  Pay Review
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor-General what progress has been made with the pay review in the Law Officers' Department, agencies and non-departmental public bodies for which she is responsible, with particular reference to the gender pay gap; and if she will make a statement. [106749]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 7 April 2003]: The information is as follows:

  Crown Prosecution Service

  The Crown Prosecution Service has undertaken an analysis of both its pay structure and the individual pay details of all its permanent staff. The detailed results are being discussed with the Departmental Trade Unions and a formal action plan will be available soon.

  While the focus of the Crown Prosecution Service's Equal Pay Review Model is on gender equality, the Department's intention is to apply it to other groups as part of a wider diversity agenda late this year. This we will be able to do more effectively given the outcomes we obtained from the current exercise.

  Serious Fraud Office

  The Serious Fraud Office conducted its equal pay review in April 2003 and is in the process of drafting an action plan. It is proposed that a copy of the agreed action plan will be placed in the Library of the House in due course.

  Treasury Solicitor's Department and Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers

  The Treasury Solicitor's Department has completed the review of its pay systems, encompassing women, ethnic minorities and people with disabilities. An action plan has been produced and this will be placed in the Library of the House after full consideration has been given to the issues identified. The Review covers staff in the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers.

  HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate

  Although the pay systems for HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate differ from those of the Treasury Solicitor's Department, they fall within that budget and HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate was therefore included as apart of the Treasury Solicitor's Department review of the pay systems encompassing women, ethnic minorities and people with disabilities. HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate is currently giving consideration to how the recommendations made following the review may impact upon it.

  Public Sector Pensions
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Solicitor-General if she will list the(a) funded and (b) unfunded public sector pension schemes for which the Attorney General's Department is responsible; when the last actuarial valuation was of each scheme; what the value was of the assets at the last
  380W
  actuarial valuation of each scheme; what deficit is disclosed by the last actuarial valuation of each scheme; and if she will make a statement. [104915]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 27 March 2003]: The Attorney General has no responsibility for any funded or unfunded public sector pension schemes.

  Public Service Agreement
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor-General what steps the Department has taken to publicise its Public Service Agreement targets; and at what cost to public funds. [114441]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 21 May 2003.]

  Crown Prosecution Service

  The Crown Prosecution Service included its Public Service Agreement targets in its Target Delivery Report, published in February 2003, and in its Strategic and Business Plans for 2003 and 2006, published in March 2003. Public Service Agreement targets are also included in the annual Departmental Report which will be published very shortly. These documents are available on the Crown Prosecution website.

  The inclusion of Public Service Agreement targets in these documents is at no additional cost to public funds.

  Serious Fraud Office

  The Serious Fraud Office does not have Public Service Agreement targets but is finalising appropriate targets to cover the Survey 2002 period from 2003–04 to 2005–06. Once agreed they will be published on the official website. The cost to public funds is likely to be under £500.

  Treasury Solicitor's Department and HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate

  The Treasury Solicitor's Department is not a main Department and is not, therefore, covered by a Public Service Agreement. However, the Department was required to produce and agree with the Attorney General and HM Treasury a Corporate Plan covering the Spending Review 2002 period. This included new performance targets and for accounting purposes covers the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers and the HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate.

  The Department's Corporate Plan was placed in the House of Commons and House of Lords Libraries and on the Department's website. Copies were also made available to all staff through the Department's Intranet. The presentational copies for these purposes were produced in-house at opportunity cost. The only direct cost incurred was £650 for colour photocopying for an additional 60 copies for senior management, other key staff and clients.

  Sellafield
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Solicitor-General what main points the Attorney General made at the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea tribunal on the dispute with the Republic of Ireland over the Sellafield MOX plant, international movements of radioactive materials, and the protection of the marine environments of the Irish Sea; and if she will place in the Library copies of United Kingdom submissions to the tribunal. [119879]
  381W
  The Solicitor-General
  The Attorney General is leading the United Kingdom's legal team at the MOX Plant case before the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea arbitral tribunal. In those proceedings the United Kingdom requests the Tribunal to:

  (i) adjudge and declare that it lacks jurisdiction over the claims brought against the United Kingdom by Ireland;

  or, in the alternative

  (ii) dismiss the claims brought against the United Kingdom by Ireland.

  The public transcript of the hearing, both in the main proceedings which have now been suspended, and in the provisional measures proceedings subsequently commenced by Ireland, are available on the website of the Permanent Court of Arbitration (http://www.cpapca.org/) as are the written pleadings of the United Kingdom and Ireland. A copy of these public documents will be placed in the Library as soon as possible.

  Work Placements
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Solicitor-General how many university students her Department and associated agencies supported or sponsored with a work placement in the last year; what her policy is on work placements; what plans she has to develop such schemes; and what her policy is on paying their university fees. [98495]

  The Solicitor-General
  On 24 June 2003 the Crown Prosecution Service will be launching a new law scholarship programme, which will sponsor administration and clerical employees to become qualified lawyers.

  The programme will start with £4.78 million over three years and will sponsor 216 law scholars (rising to 338 in 2005–06) who will get their fees paid and will be supported at work.

  As well as widening access to the legal profession the programme will extend the availability of Higher education to those with no post-school qualifications, and will assist in the recruitment and retention of CPS employees.

  The Treasury Solicitor's Department and Serious Fraud Office offer vacation placements under a scheme operated on behalf of the Government Legal Service by the Government Legal Service Secretariat. Through such placements students get an insight into the unique perspective of the law within Government while having the opportunity to sample the attractions of Government legal work as a career choice. The scheme has operated successfully for several years, though we keep it under constant review to see how it could be improved.

  Seventy six places were offered in 2002 by 12 Government Legal Service Departments. Of these Treasury Solicitor's Department offered 20 places and the Serious Fraud Office offered two places. The scheme is targeted at second year law students and final year non-law students. Departments pay a modest allowance to cover travelling and other expenses but there is no specific contribution to university fees.

  The Treasury Solicitor's Department, along with a number of other Government Departments, also provides six-month work placements on an annual basis
  382W
  to students from Brunel University who are undertaking a four-year sandwich law degree course. In 2002 there were seven such students. They are paid during their work placement, but there is no specific contribution to university fees.

  HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate and the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers are both very small departments and do not have work placement schemes.

TREASURY

  Employment Rates
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the employment rate is of(a) men aged between 50 and 65 and (b) women aged between 50 and 60 broken down by each year of age. [119917]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. David Willetts, dated 18 June 2003:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about the employment rates of men aged between 50 and 65, and women aged between 50 and 60 broken down by year.
  The attached table gives the information requested for the twelve month period ending February 2003. These estimates are from the Labour Force Survey (LFS).

  Employment rates1 of men aged 50–65 and women aged 50–60 United Kingdom, March 2002 to February 2003

  Percentage

  Age

  Men

  Women

  50

  86.2

  75.1

  51

  84.8

  74.0

  52

  83.2

  73.4

  53

  82.4

  70.3

  54

  80.3

  69.5

  55

  77.5

  66.7

  56

  74.6

  62.5

  57

  73.1

  58.0

  58

  71.2

  54.6

  59

  67.1

  48.6

  60

  59.8

  37.4

  61

  56.1

  —

  62

  49.7

  —

  63

  47.0

  —

  64

  36.3

  —

  65

  23.8

  —

  1 Total in employment as a percentage of all persons in the relevant age group

  Note:

  These LFS estimates have not been adjusted to reflect the 2001 Census results.

  Source:

  ONS Labour Force Survey

  Equitable Life
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on what date he expects the Penrose report into Equitable Life to be published; and if he will make a statement. [119838]
  383W
  Mr. Boateng
  Arrangements for the publication of Lord Penrose's report will be made after he delivers his report to Treasury Ministers.

  Civil Service (New Entrants)
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many new entrants to the Civil Service were employed in his Department in each of the last five years; and how many in each year were aged 50 or over. [119816]

  John Healey
  The information is as follows:

  HM Treasury

  1 April-31 March

  New entrants to the Civil Service

  Number aged 50 or over

  1998–99

  76

  2

  1999–2000

  63

  0

  2000–01

  132

  4

  2001–02

  181

  3

  2002–03

  115

  2

  HM Customs & Excise

  1 April-31 March

  New entrants to the Civil Service

  Number aged 50 or over

  1998–99

  1,284

  75

  1999–2000

  1,496

  84

  2000–01

  2,323

  129

  2001–02

  1,468

  69

  2002–03

  1,815

  112

  Inland Revenue

  1 April-31 March

  New entrants to the Civil Service

  Number aged 50 or over

  1998–99

  2,537

  313

  1999–2000

  4,054

  581

  2000–01

  2,833

  279

  2001–02

  4,240

  485

  2002–03

  4,637

  524

  Contributions Agency
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer who the head of the Contributions Agency was in 1998; how many meetings the head of the Contributions Agency had with Ministers in the Department of Social Security in 1998; whether minutes were kept of such meetings; whether written reports were prepared in 1998 by the Agency on the operations of the Agency; and to which Minister of the Department of Social Security the head of the Contributions Agency reported in 1998. [115914]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Member to the written statement I made to the House yesterday.

  Euro
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) whether he will set a limit on the transition costs to Government Departments of joining the euro; [120024]
  384W
  (2) what his expenditure has been on (a) the Business Advisory Group and (b) the City Euro Group in each year since their creation; [120026]

  (3) whether the transition costs to Government departments of joining the euro will be met from (a) existing departmental budgets, (b) increased taxation and (c) increased borrowing; [120039]

  (4) what estimate he has made of the transition costs to Government departments of joining the euro. [120040]

  Mr. Boateng
  Details of expenditure on changeover planning were included in the third outline National Changeover Plan, published on 9 June 2003. Copies of the document are in the Library of the House.

  The costs of a UK changeover would depend on the approach taken, and the extent to which organisations have already considered the euro as a factor when making investment decisions. By planning ahead, costs to the whole economy can be kept to a minimum. The third outline National Changeover Plan provides all sectors of the economy with a basis for planning.

  Financial Advice
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will develop a system of generic financial advice for those on lower incomes. [119845]

  Mr. Boateng
  The FSA tells me that it is currently working on its commitment to develop a comprehensive strategy to help consumers, including those on lower incomes, gain a better understanding of the financial services market place.

  This involves working with advice agencies, consumer groups, the industry and others, to establish the most effective ways to deliver financial information and generic advice.

  The FSA plans to consult widely as this work develops.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate has been made of the number of independent financial advisers whose independent status will be lost as a result of depolarisation. [119843]

  Mr. Boateng
  How independent financial advisers chose to conduct and organise their business is a matter for them.

  The FSA have examined this issue carefully as part of their wider work on polarisation reform. They set out their views on the costs and benefits of reform in Appendix B of their Consultation Paper 166, published in January 2003. The FSA also published the report to them by National Economics Research Associates.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent assessment has been made of the number of independent financial advisers who have been refused professional indemnity cover. [119846]

  Mr. Boateng
  The FSA tell me that they do not collect data in this form. A firm may be denied cover by one insurer and subsequently obtain it from another, but that is a commercial matter between insurers and their clients.
  385W
  What is important is that firms who should obtain PI cover do so, or otherwise address the issue, for example by obtaining a waiver.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many complaints of mis-selling of(a) endowment policies and (b) other financial products by (i) tied agencies and (ii) independent financial advisers were made to the Financial Services Authority in (A) 2001, (B) 2002 and (C) 2003. [119847]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Financial Services Authority, as regulator, makes rules for IFAs and for tied agents. These include rules designed to prevent mis-selling and rules that require regulated firms to follow specified complaints procedures. Where firms are unable to resolve complaints themselves, FSA rules require them to allow complainants to pursue their complaints with the Financial Ombudsman Service and to comply promptly with an ombudsman's decision.

  The Financial Ombudsman Service has provided the following figures for complaints it has handled in the last three financial years:

  Mortgage endowment complaints

  IFAs

  Percentage of total

  Tied agents

  Percentage of total

  Total

  2002–03

  1,898

  13.99

  11,672

  86.01

  13,570

  2001–02

  2.312

  15.84

  12,283

  84,16

  14,595

  2000–011

  —

  —

  —

  —

  9,067

  1 Investment complaints prior to April 2001 were dealt with by the Personal Investment Authority (PIA) Ombudsman Bureau, which did not record statistics that can be analysed in this way. However, across the range of investment related complaints in 2000–01, those against IFAs accounted for 13.9 per cent. of the total and tied agents 86.1 per cent.

  Complaints about other investment-related products (personal pension plans, whole-of-life/non mortgage-linked endowments and other 'packaged' investment products)

  IFAs

  Percentage of total

  Tied agents

  Percentage of total

  Total

  2002–03

  3,112

  16.24

  16,047

  83.76

  19,159

  2001–02

  1,952

  15.76

  10,434

  84.24

  12,386

  2000–011

  —

  —

  —

  —

  8,019

  1 Investment complaints prior to April 2001 were dealt with by the Personal Investment Authority (PIA) Ombudsman Bureau, which did not record statistics that can be analysed in this way. However, across the range of investment related complaints in 2000–01, those against IFAs accounted for 13.9 per cent. of the total and tied agents 86.1 per cent.

  Inflation Measures
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what advice has been received from the RPI Advisory Committee regarding his intention to give the Bank of England an inflation target as measured by the Harmonised Index of Consumer Prices; and what further consultation is planned with this Committee. [120332]

  John Healey
  None. The RPI Advisory Committee is not a Standing Committee. If it were convened, it would be to make recommendations to the Chancellor on proposed changes to the construction of the RPI, not to give advice on inflation target or monetary policy.

  Iraq
  Jonathan Shaw
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much financial assistance he has set aside for reconstruction work in Iraq; and what areas of reconstruction the Government(a) is financially supporting and (b) plans to support. [119511]

  Hilary Benn
  I have been asked to reply.

  DFID has so far committed £115 million towards humanitarian assistance in Iraq. This finance is channelled though the organisations best placed to deliver assistance on the ground: United Nations agencies, the Red Cross and Red Crescent, and NGOs. We have set aside a further £95 million for additional needs as they emerge.

  In addition, HM Treasury has earmarked an extra £60 million from the Central Reserve to meet humanitarian and reconstruction needs in Iraq. £5 million of this has been allocated to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to fund UK secondees to the Coalition Provisional Authority. The remaining £55 million remains available as required.

  The World Bank, International Monetary Fund and United Nations are undertaking social and economic needs assessments for Iraq. Decisions on future DFID assistance for reconstruction will reflect the needs identified in these assessments as well as the inputs proposed by other donors. We expect a donor conference on Iraq to be convened in the autumn.

  DFID's interim humanitarian and rehabilitation strategy is available from the DFID website at www.dfid.org.uk

  Parliament Buildings (VAT)
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how much VAT the Treasury has received from the construction of the Scottish Parliament; and how much VAT the Treasury is expected to receive in total based on the latest estimates for the Scottish Parliament building; [119889]

  (2) how much VAT the Treasury received from the construction of Portcullis House. [119891]

  John Healey
  HM Customs and Excise is debarred by statute from disclosing information about the tax affairs of individual taxpayers, including public and private sector bodies. Exemption 15 (Statutory and other restrictions) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information applies. It is for bodies concerned to publish any such information as appropriate to their reporting obligations. However, all construction projects undertaken in the UK are subject to the same set of VAT rules laid out in the VAT Act 1994.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Appeal Processing Centre
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the backlog of cases at the Appeal Processing Centre is; and how many people are employed at the centre. [119506]
  387W
  Beverley Hughes
  The latest figure based on management information for the number of cases outstanding in the Appeals Processing Centre is 47,000 at the end of September 2002. This includes all appeals lodged with the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) that had not yet been sent to the Immigration Appellate Authority.

  The Appeals Processing Centre currently employs 306 staff.

  British Overseas Citizens
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been granted citizenship who were previously British Overseas Citizens. [119507]

  Beverley Hughes
  1,055 people who were previously British Overseas Citizens were granted British citizenship in 2001.

  Statistics for 2002 are due to be published later this year in the Home Office statistical bulletin "Persons Granted British Citizenship United Kingdom, 2002", a copy of which will be placed in the Library.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff have been employed in the Ministerial Correspondence Unit of the Department in each of the last two years. [115888]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  The Home Office does not have a dedicated ministerial correspondence unit. The Direct Communications Unit (DCU) serves the non-Immigration Nationality Directorate Home Office, but the staff who deal with ministerial correspondence also deal with approximately 40,000 public letters per annum. Staff in IND also deal with public correspondence, and have a variety of other taks. The table shows the staffing figures.

  Staff employed in Ministerial Correspondence Units in the Home Office

  April 2002

  April 2003

  DCU

  52 permanent 1 casual

  49 permanent

  IND

  No figures available

  170 permanent

  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when a substantive reply will be sent to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed regarding his letter to the Minister of State of 4 September 2002 relating to an allegation of illegal immigration, ref 18268/2; and what the reasons are for the delay in dealing with the matter. [118809]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 16 June 2003]: I wrote to the right hon. Member on 18 June 2003.

  Entitlement/Identity Cards
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to introduce a national identity card; what information it will hold; what 388W
  services it could access; whether it will be compulsory; and if he will make a statement on how a card could affect civil liberties. [119572]

  Beverley Hughes
  The six month consultation period on entitlement cards and identity fraud ended on 31 January 2003. We have received over 4,000 individual responses to the consultation exercise.

  The consultation paper included suggestions for what might be held on any supporting database, which would be needed to administer a scheme. Only core personal information such as name, address and date of birth would be held, which is held many times over by a number of Government systems. The consultation document suggested that sensitive personal information as defined by the Data Protection Act 1998 would not be held on the database or card without consent.

  The consultation paper invited comments on what services might be linked to a card scheme. We have said all along that it would not be compulsory to carry any card. The consultation paper explained how a card scheme could comply with all eight principles of the Data Protection Act. In providing greater protection against identity theft and fraud, a card scheme could enhance civil liberties.

  EU Committees
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the names, titles and grades of the officials who sit on the committee for the European Refugee Fund, the number of times and the dates on which it has met since January 2002, the agenda items it has considered since January 2002, the decisions it has made since January 2002 and the means used to communicate these decisions to the House. [110498]

  Beverley Hughes
  Officials from the Home Office Immigration and Nationality Directorate represent the United Kingdom. The precise composition of the delegation will vary according to the topics under discussion. Representation from other Member States is a matter for those Governments.

  Since January 2002 the Committee has met four times. The dates of these meetings were 6 February 2002, 27 May 2002, 13 February 2003 and 22 May 2003. It has consulted once by way of written procedure in December 2002.

  The agenda items that have been discussed are as follows:

  6 February 2002
  Opinion on draft revised decisions on co-financing of Member States national programmes for 2002, further to the increase in the budget of the European Refugee Fund (ERF) allocated by the Budgetary Authority;
  Evaluation of Programmes;
  Information from the Commission on decision regarding the selection of "Community Action projects" 2001 (Article 5 Council Decision);
  Information on Call for Proposals published by the European Commission for "Community Action projects" 2002 (Article 5 Council Decision);
  Information from the Commission on monitoring of national programmes; and
  Presentation of its activities by the Council of Europe Development Bank.
  389W
  27 May 2002
  Information from the Commission on implementation of Commission Decision 2002/307/EC of 18 December 2001, laying down detailed rules for the implementation of Council Decision 2000/596/EC as regards management and control systems and procedures for making financial corrections in the context of actions co-financed by the ERF.

  10 December 2002 (Written procedure)
  Opinion on draft decisions on co-financing of Member States national programmes for 2003; and
  Information from the Commission on revised provisional allocations by Member States for 2003, based on forecast increased budget (subject to the final adoption by the Budgetary Authority).

  13 February 2003

  Opinion on draft revised decisions on co-financing of Member States national programmes for 2003, further to the increase in the budget of the ERF allocated by the Budgetary Authority;
  Information from the Commission—preparation of final reports and financial statements for programme years 2000 and 2001;
  Information from the Commission—presentation of independent evaluation by of 1998 and 1999 projects for asylum-seekers, displaced persons and refugees; and
  Information from the Commission—independent ERF midterm evaluation.

  Cases outstanding as of 31 May 2003 and year of receipt

  Requests from EU1

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  Belgium

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  1

  France

  1

  1

  1

  1

  2

  3

  7

  6

  5

  Germany

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  7

  6

  8

  Italy

  —

  —

  2

  —

  1

  3

  8

  12

  3

  Luxembourg

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Netherlands

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  5

  2

  Denmark

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Greece

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Portugal

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  2

  2

  3

  3

  Spain

  —

  2

  1

  2

  2

  1

  5

  6

  4

  Austria

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Finland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Sweden

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  1 Figures do not include requests from Ireland which are not collected centrally.

  Cases outstanding as of 31 May 2003 and year of receipt

  Requests from EV Accession states

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  Estonia

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Latvia

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Lithuania

  —

  —

  3

  5

  1

  Poland

  1

  —

  1

  2

  —

  Hungary

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Czech Republic

  —

  —

  4

  9

  3

  Slovakia

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  Slovenia

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Cyprus

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Malta

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Interface with Faith Communities
  22 May 2003
  Question time—preparation of final reports and financial statements for programme years 2000 and 2001;
  Information from the Commission—ERF 2004 provisional allocations;
  Information from the Commission—call for proposals for Community Actions 2003;
  Bilateral meetings between the Commission and ERF-Member States on the preparation of final reports and financial statements for programme years 2000 and 2001; and
  Information from the Commission—presentation of the ERF programme to the acceding countries.
  The Committee's function is advisory and it has made no decisions which fall to be reported to Parliament.

  Extradition Requests
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many outstanding extradition requests have been made to the United Kingdom by each member of the European Union and EU accession states; and when the original extradition request was made in each case. [118911]

  Caroline Flint
  [holding answer 16 June 2003]: The information requested is as follows:

  Total no of extradition requests received by UK from all1 countries

  1998

  111

  1999

  101

  2000

  78

  2001

  133

  2002

  137

  Total

  560

  Rob Marris
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) women and (b) men there are amongst the faith community members of his Department's Working Group which is reviewing the Government's Interface with Faith Communities. [115975]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  There is one woman and six men faith community members of the group.

  The faith groups were encouraged to nominate a woman. However, most nominated a suitably qualified man and it would not have been appropriate for us to reject these nominations on the grounds of gender alone.

  391W
  We are conscious of the need to ensure proper representation of women and young people in faith consultations. We will be looking at this issue as part of this review.

  Race Relations Amendment Act
  Angela Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department 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. [117620]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  The Home Office is committed to promoting equality and diversity for the communities we serve and also for our staff. This accords with the Department's purpose of working with individuals and communities to build a safe, just and tolerant society and our aim to support strong and active communities in which people of all races and backgrounds are valued and participate on equal terms. The Home Office published its Race Equality Scheme on 25 April 2002, in line with the requirements of the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000. We have identified a number of areas of our work as having a high potential impact on race equality and race relations, including policies on reducing crime and disorder, on police leadership, powers and relations with the public, on victims of crime, on drugs and on active communities, community cohesion and race relations. Our scheme commits us to assessing and consulting on new policies, and monitoring policies generally, for their impact on race equality and race relations.

  The Police Complaints Authority, National Crime Squad, National Criminal Intelligence Service and Commission for Racial Equality have all published race equality schemes in line with the requirements of the Act. Although not required to do so, the Central Police Development and Training Agency (Centrex) has also published such a scheme; and the Parole Board, which has already produced an action plan against racial discrimination, on which it has consulted the Commission, is preparing a scheme.

  Mr right hon. Friend the Home Secretary appointed Mary Coussey as Independent Race Monitor for ministerial authorisations to discriminate on grounds of nationality, and of national and ethnic origin, in immigration and nationality functions. Her first interim report was published in November 2002. The Prison Service is in the process of revising its Race Equality Action Plan to take account of issues raised by the Commission for Racial Equality following the Commission's formal investigation of the Service.

  The Home Office has published a number of reports setting out the results of monitoring of the position of minority ethnic people in relation to our policies and employment practices, for example the Statistics on Race and the Criminal Justice System 2002 report, published in March 2003; and the milestone report on the Home Secretary's Race Equality Employment Targets (covering staff targets for the Home Office and Prison, Police, Fire and Probation Services), published in January 2003. We are currently collating and analysing data from monitoring of the Home Office's own employment processes relating to the first year of
  392W
  operation of the Department's Race Equality Scheme and expect to be in a position to publish the results in September 2003.

  Sustainable Development
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on steps he is taking to meet the commitments set out in his Department's framework for sustainable development. [118784]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  A full statement of the steps the Home Office is taking to meet the commitments set out in the Framework for Sustainable Development on the Government Estate is available on the Home Office website at www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs/framework2.

  The main actions referred to in the statement are:
  1. The Prison Service has implemented environmental management systems at four sites and plan to use this experience to produce an implementation manual which will be piloted in their north-west area, with a view to wider adoption across the whole Service if it proves successful. The Probation Service Estate has only recently been taken into the Department's ownership and as part of their new property management arrangements, a system for identifying and managing key sustainable development impacts on their key sites will be in place by April 2004;
  2. On transport emissions the Home Office intends to purchase alternatively fuelled vehicles, so that by March 2006 10 per cent. of the fleet will be alternatively fuelled. The Department will also review its policy on motor mileage payments and consider measures to discourage staff from commuting to work by car;
  3. On the water targets, surveys will be undertaken at poor performing office buildings and recommended modifications where practicable will be undertaken. Prisons and laboratories are working towards individual benchmarks on water consumption. The key sites on the National Probation Service Estate which have responsibility for payment of utilities will also join watermark over the next two years; and
  4. The Home Office will respond to future commitments from the Framework as and when they are published.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Portcullis House
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission what the total cost was of Portcullis House. [119890]

  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  The current expected final cost is in the region of £234 million, as outlined in the National Audit Office report: "Construction of Portcullis House" (HC750 of Session 2001–02), published on 19 April 2002. This figure covers the cost of the building, professional fees, furniture and fittings, but is subject to the settlement of final accounts with suppliers.

PRIME MINISTER

  Department for Constitutional Affairs
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the functions of the Department for Constitutional Affairs; and what the statutory authority is for the(a) exercise

  393W
  of the Lord Chancellor's functions by the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and (b) transfer of those functions to the Secretary of State. [120180]

  The Prime Minister
  Statutory functions are being transferred in the normal way by order under the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975. The right hon. Lord Falconer of Thoroton QC has been appointed as Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, and for the transitional period as Lord Chancellor. The transfer of functions from the Lord Chancellor to the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs will be completed once the position of Lord Chancellor is abolished.

  The majority of the statutory functions of the Department for Constitutional Affairs will be the same as for the former Lord Chancellor's Department. The right hon. Lord Falconer of Thoroton QC will be responsible for the appointing, or advising on the appointment of, judges, during the transitional phase as Lord Chancellor. His other functions include:
  the administration of the court system (via the Court Service agency established in 1995) and a number of tribunals;
  the provision of legal aid and legal services; and
  the promotion of reform and revision of English civil law.

  In addition the Department's responsibilities include the following:

  Law Commission

  Commonhold

  Immigration and Asylum appeals

  House of Lords reform

  Human Rights

  Freedom of Information

  Data Protection and data sharing policy

  Policy on Electoral Law

  Policy on Referendums

  Policy on Party Funding

  Tribunals policy

  Channel Islands and the Isle of Man

  Public Guardianship Office

  Official Solicitor's Office

  Statutory Publications Office

  In addition, the Department will be responsible for the overall devolution settlement and the Scotland and Wales Offices have become a part of the Department for Constitutional Affairs, while retaining their distinct identities and with civil servants in those Offices reporting to their respective junior Ministers and Secretaries of State.

  The Secretary of State is also responsible for:

  The Northern Ireland Court Service

  The Land Registry

  National Archives

  The policy responsibilities of the Department for services for children and their families, including responsibility for CAFCASS, are transferring to the new Minister for Children in the Department for Education and Skills.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Prime Minister whether the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs will receive the pension entitlement of the Lord Chancellor(a) during the planned transition period before the
  394W
  proposed abolition of the office and (b) subsequently, if the office is abolished; and if he will make a statement. [120022]

  The Prime Minister
  No. The Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs has elected to receive only a salary and pension equivalent to that received by other Secretaries of State in the House of Lords.

  English Devolution
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister which department is responsible for English devolution. [119975]

  The Prime Minister
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is responsible for regional and local government in England.

  Intelligence and Security Committee Report
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Prime Minister when he expects to lay the Government's Response to the Intelligence and Security Committee's annual report for 2002–03 before Parliament. [121050]

  The Prime Minister
  I have today laid the Government response to the Intelligence and Security Committee's report before Parliament.

  Official Spelling
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy that official(a) correspondence, (b) reports and (c) documentation from his office uses the English spelling of words where this differs from the US version. [118747]

  The Prime Minister
  The published guidance from the Cabinet Office on the Handling of Ministerial and Other Correspondence and on Plain Written English, emphasise that appropriate arrangements should be in place to ensure the quality of all replies is high.

  Regulatory Reform
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Prime Minister which Cabinet Minister has overall responsibility for regulatory reform. [120276]

  The Prime Minister
  The Minister of State, Cabinet Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. Alexander) has lead responsibility for regulatory reform.

  US Foreign Policy
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to his Answer of 11 June 2003,Official Report, column 870W, on US foreign policy, if he will list the occasions since January 2001 when he has disagreed with US foreign policy. [120270]

  The Prime Minister
  Examples of issues where I have publicly disagreed with the United States include on steel tariffs 10 April 2002,Official Report, column 17, and on trade 19 March 2003, Official Report, column 935.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development how many hospitals in Afghanistan have shortages of(a) nurses, (b) doctors, (c) drugs and (d) beds. [119618]

  Hilary Benn
  An Afghanistan Health Resources Assessment was carried out on behalf of the Ministry of Health by Management Sciences for Health in 2002. This national survey gathered information about the location and facilities of hospitals and health centres, services provided, human resources and rehabilitation needs.

  The survey identified 21 regional/national hospitals, 41 provincial hospitals and 114 district hospitals. 87 per cent. of the 1,038 hospitals and health facilities identified are presently operating.

  The survey identified 8,445 beds in 210 health facilities (approximately 1 bed for every 2,500 people). Most of these beds are located in urban areas—Kabul in particular. On average, developing countries have 2.7 hospital beds per 1,000 population. The survey suggests that Afghanistan has 0.4 of a bed per 1,000 population.

  There are approximately 2,300 doctors (approximately 0.1 per 1,000 population), (average rate in developing countries 1.1). There are massive shortages of nurses and qualified birth attendants: doctors make up over a quarter of all health workers. 40 per cent. of facilities providing basic health care have no female health provider. This is extremely important in this largely conservative Muslim country with strong taboos against female patients being treated by male health providers.

  Over 80 per cent. of health facilities currently receive external support for drugs and supplies. The availability of five of the most important primary care level drugs was good, at 90 per cent.

  Iraq
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development who will be responsible for the appointment of Iraqi delegates to the interim Iraqi Administration. [118476]

  Mr. Rammell
  I have been asked to reply.

  We are committed to ensuring that the development of the political process in Iraq, including the formation of the interim Administration, takes place in accordance with UNSCR 1483. Consultations are continuing on the political process between coalition representatives including the UK Special Representative for Iraq, representatives of Iraq interest groups and political parties and the UN Special Representative.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what procedures her Department employs to ensure the swift reply to parliamentary questions. [117074]
  396W
  Hilary Benn
  DFID attach great importance to answering PQs accurately and within recommended deadlines.

  PQs are drafted in line with central Cabinet Office guidelines entitled "Guidance to Officials on Drafting Answers to Parliamentary Questions". Copies of this guidance are available in the Libraries of the House.

  DFID also has detailed internal guidance in place for all staff on how PQs should be answered. We have a Parliamentary Unit that operates tracking and monitoring procedures to ensure that PQs are allocated promptly to the appropriate drafting officials and processed within pre-set deadlines.

  Every effort is made to handle PQs with the highest priority, but we also want to make sure that answers are as complete, informative and consistent as possible for Members. This means that deadlines for reply may not be met on every occasion.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Agency Workers Helpline
  Colin Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) how the telephone number of the Department's helpline for agency workers is advertised; [119547]

  (2) how many calls the Department's helpline for agency workers has taken in the past 12 months; and how many of these calls emanated from workers in west Yorkshire. [119548]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  [holding answers 18 June 2003]: We have advertised DTI's Employment Agency Standards (EAS) helpline in various publications, including specialist trade newspapers and magazines and on the DTI's website. In addition, information booklets, leaflets and posters, which contain details of the EAS Inspectorate and Helpline telephone number, are issued to interested organisations, such as Citizen Advice Bureaux, Jobcentres, AC AS, the relevant trade associations and trade unions.

  Between 1 June 2002 and 31 May 2003 the DTI's Employment Agency Standards helpline received 8,965 telephone inquiries. It is not possible to provide a breakdown by geographical region.

  BCCI
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she last met the liquidators of BCCI. [120036]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  My officials met one of the liquidators of BCCI on 4 March 2003 to review the progress of the liquidation.

  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will meet the honourable Member for Leicester, East and a delegation of creditors to discuss the cost of liquidation of BCCI. [120037]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  No. The costs of the liquidation of BCCI are a matter for the liquidators, the liquidation committee of creditors or the court.
  397W
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the total cost of the liquidation of BCCI is. [120038]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The costs of the liquidation of BCCI in England and Wales totalled £686 million as at 15 January 2003.

  Biomass Renewable Projects
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to develop biomass renewable projects. [119882]

  Mr. Timms
  The Government are committed to biomass and have launched a number of programmes to support and promote bioenergy in the UK.

  The Bioenergy Capital Grants Scheme (BCGS), joint-funded by DTI and the New Opportunities Fund and worth £66 million, will support the early deployment of biomass-fired technology and builds on support made available under the Non Fossil Fuel Obligation (NFFO). The BCGS, launched in February 2002, has proven very popular and has become over-subscribed with funds now fully allocated. In total, 21 projects across the UK will be supported by the Scheme, covering heat, combined heat and power and electricity generation from biomass.

  DEFRA, as part of its England Rural Development Programme, has made available £29 million for the establishment of energy crops including short rotation coppice (SRC) and miscanthus under the Energy Crops Scheme. A further £3.5 million is to be made available for the establishment of infrastructure to facilitate the harvest and supply of energy crops to the power generator.

  The Woodland Grant Scheme and the Farm Woodland Premium Scheme, co-ordinated by the Forestry Commission in mainland UK and Forest Services in Northern Ireland, provides grants to create and manage woodland, which can help in the production of wood fuel. The Woodland Grant Scheme also supports the establishment of SRC in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

  The Clear Skies Initiative, a £10 million grants programme launched by DTI in February 2003, supports eligible community and domestic wood fired heating projects.

  Biomass is also supported through the Renewables Obligation, which came into effect on 1 April 2002, and electricity supplied by dedicated biomass plant or through co-firing will qualify for Renewable Obligation Certificates and be exempt from the Climate Change Levy (CCL).

  Finally, grants are available for research, development and demonstration projects through the DTI's £19 million New and Renewable Energy Programme. There are two calls for proposals to the Programme each year. Work on improving the yield and pest resistance of energy crops and developing advanced conversion technologies such as gasification and pyrolysis has progressed through the Programme.
  398W
  The Government will continue to review the level of support given to biomass and explore new ideas and opportunities to further promote this renewable energy resource in the UK.

  Company Insolvency
  Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to amend legislation protecting the pay and conditions of employees in cases of companies being taken into administration. [120233]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Government will be reviewing the existing employment protection afforded to employees of insolvent employers when implementing the changes arising from the European Council Directive 2002/74/ EC amending the European Council Directive 80/987/ EEC on the approximation of the laws of the member states relating to the protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer, which are to be implemented by October 2005.

  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to limit the costs charged by liquidators in insolvency cases. [120035]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has no plans to intervene in the administration of insolvent estates by seeking to limit the fees charged by insolvency practitioners. This is primarily a matter for the creditors of the insolvent estate. The Insolvency Rules 1986 make provision for the court to review the amount where, in appropriate circumstances, an application is made by either the creditors or the practitioner.

  All insolvency practitioners are required to follow the guidance on remuneration contained in Statement of Insolvency Practice number 9, which was amended in December 2002.

  Post Office
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has had with the managers of Royal Mail Group regarding the company's policy of transferring the transport of mail freight from rail to road and air; and if she will press the Royal Mail Group to review the decision to terminate its contract with EWS. [118710]

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

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

  San Francisco Consulate
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the
  399W
  impact on British business of the proposed sale of the consular residence in San Francisco by the Foreign Office. [118637]

  Mr. Rammell
  I have been asked to reply.

  We do not expect any significant impact. The new residence will provide good support for the commercial activities of the Consulate General. We are also looking to improve the facilities of the Consulate General office located in the business district, by adding a meeting room for briefings and receptions.

  Nuclear Industry
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions she has held with(a) the Department for Education and Skills and (b) individual universities on the development of a workforce equipped with the necessary skill levels for the nuclear industry. [119974]

  Mr. Timms
  Following publication in December 2002 of the report of the 'Nuclear Skills Group', activity has focused on the development of proposals for a new Sector Skills Council—COGENT—covering the nuclear industry, oil and gas, petroleum and polymers. My officials have had meetings with DfES as part of that process and work closely with DfES colleagues on the approach to sector skills generally. Officials have also been in discussion with a number of Universities about the provision of relevant courses to ensure that skills relevant to the nuclear industry are available for the future. These discussions are continuing.

  Wind Farms
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) how many wind farms are in operation in(a) Scotland, (b) England, (c) Wales and (d) Northern Ireland; [119968]

  (2) how many sites have been identified for future development of wind farms in (a) Scotland, (b) England, (c) Wales and (d) Northern Ireland (i) this year and (ii) in each of the next three years. [119969]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answers 18 June 2003]: The British Wind Energy Association (BWEA) prepares a quarterly analysis on the status of the UK wind energy industry to keep track of the rapid growth being experienced in this sector.

  A list of all grid-connected wind power projects in the UK can be found within the BWEA website at http://www.bwea.com/map/list.html

  The BWEA's quarterly analysis for April 2003 includes a list of new wind power projects due for construction in the UK in the coming years. This can be found within the BWEA website at http:// www. bwea.com/planmng/1Q.html

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  Asylum and Immigration Cases
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs, what the expenditure on legal aid relating to judicial reviews of 400W
  asylum and immigration cases was in (a) 2000–01, (b) 2001–02 and (c) 2002–03; and what the budget is for 2003–04. [119664]

  Mr. Lammy
  Expenditure on legal aid relating to judicial reviews of asylum and immigration cases was: £3 million in 2000–01, £3.5 million in 2001–02, and £4.9 million in 2002–03. There is no separate budget for legal aid for judicial reviews. The Legal Services Commission are required to fund all those cases which meet the criteria for funding.

SCOTLAND

  British Electricity Trading and Transmission Arrangements
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment has been made of the costs to Scottish energy producers of the delay in legislation for a UK market in electricity through the British Electricity Trading and Transmission Arrangements. [119355]

  Mr. Darling
  The Government remain committed to bringing forward legislation, as soon as parliamentary time allows, to enable the implementation of the British Electricity Trading and Transmission Arrangements by April 2005.

  Constitutional Affairs
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many staff within the Department for Constitutional Affairs will be dedicated to Scottish affairs. [120176]

  Mr. Darling
  Staff of the Scotland Office, including staff working for the Office of the Advocate General for Scotland, have now become part of the Department for Constitutional Affairs for administrative purposes.

  Discussions (First Minister)
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his predecessor's discussions with the First Minister on 16 June 2003. [120175]

  Mr. Darling
  Lord Falconer, the First Minister and I had a discussion on a range of issues.

  Ferries
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions her Department has had with(a) P & O and (b) Stena Line on the employment implications of a merger on the North Channel crossing from Loch Ryan ports to Northern Ireland. [115811]

  Mr. Darling
  In May 2003, P & O and Stena Line announced proposals affecting other Irish Sea ferry services but retaining separate services on their routes out of Loch Ryan to Lame and Belfast. Stena Line also announced at the same time that an earlier loch had been superseded by a proposal for joint operation of expanded port facilities at Cairnryan. My Department has not had any discussions with the companies.

  Local Government Elections
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans she has to review the breadth of the franchise at local government elections in Scotland. [119353]

  Mr. Darling
  There are no plans to review the breadth of the franchise at local government elections in Scotland.

  Scottish Executive
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what revised guidance has been issued to Government Departments in respect of their dealings with the Scottish Executive since 12 June 2003. [120177]

  Mr. Darling
  I shall publish revised guidance in due course.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Afghanistan
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much the UK is spending on combating the opium trade in Afghanistan; and if he will make a statement. [118708]

  Mr. Rammell
  The UK has committed around £70 million over the next three financial years to fund activities aimed directly at combating the trade in opiates in Afghanistan. The elimination of the drugs trade in Afghanistan will, however, also depend upon broader reconstruction of the economy, law enforcement capacity and political life. In support of these essential contributions to successful drugs elimination, the UK has pledged around £200 million for 2002–07.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many new entrants to the Civil Service were employed in his Department in each of the last five years; and how many in each year were aged 50 or over. [119827]

  Mr. Rammell
  The number of new entrants aged 50 or over, employed by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, are listed in the table.

  New entrants

  Over 50

  1998–99

  204

  7

  1999–2000

  237

  11

  2000–01

  275

  10

  2001–02

  409

  22

  2002–03

  397

  21

  Colombia
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what is on the agenda of the aid donors meeting on Colombia to be held on 10 July 2003; and whether military and security assistance to Colombia will be discussed. [120126]
  402W
  Mr. Rammell
  The London meeting on 10 July 2003 will discuss the political support that the international community might offer Colombia. The Colombian Government, and representatives from the UN and civil society have been invited to make presentations. Military and security assistance are not on the agenda.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether it is his policy to seek joint sovereignty over Gibraltar with the Government of Spain. [120182]

  Mr. Straw
  I refer the right hon. Member to the statement I made to the House on 12 July 2002,Official Report, column 1165.

  Guantanamo Bay
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the High Court's statement on whether the situation of detainees in Camp X-Ray complies with fundamental principles recognised by international law. [118624]

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

  We have been pressing the US to move forward with the process of determining the detainees' future and shall continue to do so.

  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with representatives of the US Government about their plans for the future of detainees held at Camp X-Ray, Guantanamo Bay. [118625]

  Mr. Mullin
  Ministers and officials have regular discussions with the United States authorities about the British detainees held at Guantanamo Bay. We have been pressing the United States authorities to move forward with the process of determining the future of the British detainees. We shall continue to do so.

  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what legal(a) protection and (b) status the British citizens detained in Camp X-Ray have. [118626]

  Mr. Mullin
  The question of the legal status of the detainees at Guantanamo Bay under international law is complex and has to be considered in the light of the facts relating to each individual detainee.

  We believe that, whatever their status, the detainees are entitled to humane treatment, and if prosecuted, a fair trial. The United States has assured us it will treat the detainees humanely and consistently with the principles of the Geneva Conventions. We have been

  403W
  pressing the US to move forward with the process of determining the future of the British detainees. We shall continue to do so.

  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received from the US Government on when the UK citizens held at Guantanamo Bay will be(a) charged and (b) released. [119768]

  Mr. Mullin
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that my ministerial colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Mrs. Lawrence) on 17 June 2003,Official Report, column 142W.

  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the US Government about expediting the process of determining what is to happen to the UK citizens held at Guantanamo Bay. [119769]

  Mr. Mullin
  We remain in regular contact with the United States, at both ministerial and official level, about the situation of the detainees held at Guantanamo Bay. We have been pressing the US to move forward with the process of determining the future of the British detainees and shall continue to do so.

  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the US Administration on access by British officials to UK citizens detained at Guantanamo Bay. [119903]

  Mr. Mullin
  We remain in regular contact with the United States, at both ministerial and official level, about the situation of the detainees held at Guantanamo Bay. British officials have visited the British nationals on five occasions, most recently in April 2003. We were the first country to visit its nationals in Guantanamo Bay. The United States has assured us that it will treat the detainees humanely and consistently with the principles of the Geneva Convention.

  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many British juveniles are being detained in Guantanamo Bay. [118484]

  Mr. Mullin
  There are no British juveniles detained at Guantanamo Bay. All the British detainees are over the age of 18.

  Iraq
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to his answer of 19 May 2003,Official Report, column 553W, if he will make a statement on the range of Iraqi opinion, among opposition and exile groups, and those newly liberated, who were (a) represented at the meeting in Nassiriya on 15 April 2003 and (b) considered and not invited; and for what reasons the latter group were not invited. [119324]

  Mr. Rammell
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers that my ministerial colleague, my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien) gave him on 14 May 2003,Official Report, column 287W and 5 June 2003, Official Report, column 553W.

  Palestinian Occupied Territories
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many new settlements he estimates have been built in the Palestinian Occupied Territories since 1993 to 2003. [118300]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  At least two major new settlements have been established within the expanded municipal boundaries of East Jerusalem. Two new settlements have been established in the West Bank. We have concerns about another four settlements in the West Bank and one in the Gaza Strip. In addition, we estimate that around 108 settlement outposts have been established in the period 1993–2003, some as far as 2 km from existing buildings. The combination of expanding settlements, the Eastern Ring Road and Route 80 will effectively isolate Jerusalem from the West Bank. Other settler roads (Routes 55, 57 and 505) divide the West Bank in an east-west direction. Settlers control 42 per cent. of the West Bank and 15 per cent. of the Gaza Strip.

  These figures are the most authoritative available, as it is difficult to get accurate statistics about settlement activity. In particular, the number of settlement outposts is fluid. The Israel Defence Forces began dismantling a number of outposts on 9 June 2003; most of which are uninhabited. Settlers have vowed to establish more. We are monitoring the situation closely.

  For a more detailed assessment of the impact of settlement building in the Occupied Territories, I refer my hon. Friend to the report, "Israeli Settlements in the West Bank and Gaza", which my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary presented to the Foreign Affairs Committee early this year. A copy has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Consular Residences
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the proposed new consular residence in Presidio Terrace, San Francisco, is governed by restrictions that will prevent its use for consular functions; and if he will make a statement. [118725]

  Mr. Rammell
  It will be possible to use the new residence for normal consular functions.

  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to his answer of 9 June 2003,Official Report, column 647W, when the present Permanent Under-Secretary visited the property; whether the PUS-designate visited the current Consul General's house; and when he visited the new property. [120326]

  Mr. Rammell
  The present PUS, Sir Michael Jay, was able to see the house when he visited San Francisco, shortly before taking up his appointment in January 2002. He has not visited the new property.

  The previous PUS, Sir John Kerr, to whom I also referred in my answer on 9 June 2003, had previously been Her Majesty's Ambassador in Washington and was familiar with the current property.

  United Nations Security Council
  Tony Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which states have signed bilateral impunity agreements following Resolution 1422 of the United Nations Security Council; and how many have ratified them. [116909]

  Mr. Rammell
  The US has publicly announced that the following 29 states have signed bilateral non-surrender agreements (to the International Criminal Court) with the US: Romania, Israel, East Timor, Tajikistan, Dominican Republic, Palau, Mauritania, Afghanistan, Micronesia, Gambia, El Salvador,406W
  Sri Lanka, India, Nepal, Djibouti, Tuvalu, Bahrain, Azerbaijan, Nauru, Rwanda, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Tonga, The Maldives, Ghana, Madagascar, Albania, Bhutan, Bosnia and Herzogovina and Bolivia. A further six have signed and ratified an agreement: Marshall Islands, Uzbekistan, Honduras, Georgia, Sierra Leone and Gabon.

  The UK has been approached by the US with a view to signing such an agreement. We have made clear that we could only sign an agreement that was consistent with the ICC Statute and the Guiding Principles agreed by the EU to govern such agreements. We await further detailed proposals.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Benefit Claims/Payments
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the duration of claims of(a) those on incapacity benefit, (b) those on other disability benefits, (c) lone parents on income support and (d) others on income support was in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [114482]

  Mr. Browne
  The available information has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his answer of 9 June 2003,Official Report, column 387, on the payment of benefits, how many pensioners have (a) received invitations to change to direct payment, (b) responded and (c) chosen to be paid via a (i) bank account, (ii) basic bank account and (iii) post office card account; and if he will make a statement on the nature of the responses received from those pensioners who did not opt for a post office card account. [120380]

  Malcolm Wicks
  As at 6 June 2003, 148,148 pensioners have been invited to change to Direct Payment and 86,828 have responded so far. Of these, 42,241 pensioners have provided bank or building society account details (we do not distinguish between basic and current accounts) and 42,603 have requested a post office card account.

  The Department is providing all customers with the information they need on all of their "account options", including those that can be used at post office branches. It is for customers themselves to decide which type of account will best meet their needs and circumstances.

  Carers Premium
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his answer of 3 June 2003, ref 115917, what the cost would be and how many beneficiaries there are of extending the carers premium to those with an established entitlement to carers allowance who are in receipt of a basic state pension, not eligible for the minimum income guarantee, and have no entitlement to other benefits that would disqualify the beneficiary by virtue of the overlapping benefit rules. [118238]

  Maria Eagle
  A carer premium can only be awarded as part of the minimum income guarantee (MIG) and would therefore not be available to those who are not eligible for MIG. However, if an amount equivalent to the carer premium was paid to all those over state pension age with an underlying entitlement to carers allowance, not eligible for MIG the anticipated cost for one year would be £100 million, with 80,000 gainers.

  Notes:

  Costs are rounded to the nearest ten million and caseloads to the nearest ten thousand.
  408W
  Source:

  December 2002 100 per cent. extract of administrative data from the CA computer system and November 2002 IS administrative data.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his target date is for implementing the new system of assessment on all cases within the CSA. [118312]

  Maria Eagle
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answer I gave the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) on 22 May 2003,Official Report, columns 918–19W.

  Employment Assistance
  Dr. Francis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) if he will make a statement on how carers can be assisted into new learning and work opportunities; [117652]

  (2) what strategies he plans to assist people with disabilities into training and work opportunities. [117653]

  Maria Eagle
  Carers and people with disabilities can obtain information about how to access training and learning opportunities through Jobcentre Plus. We are ensuring that the benefit system promotes work where possible for disabled people and carers and, where they meet the eligibility criteria, they can access a wide range of Government employment programmes.

  There are several initiatives within Jobcentre Plus aimed specifically at helping disabled people to overcome the labour market barriers they may face, including the Access to Work and Work Preparation programmes. New Deal for Disabled People, through its network of Job Brokers across England, Scotland and Wales, is also proving successful in helping disabled people achieve lasting paid employment.

  In addition, the Green Paper "Pathways to Work: Helping people into employment" (Cm 5690) sets out a new strategy for enabling people on incapacity benefits to move into work, and so become and remain independent. The Government's response and action plan (CM 5830), published on 10 June 2003, gives details of the proposals we are taking forward.

  European Social Fund
  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the projects in the South-West Bedfordshire constituency on which European Social Fund money has been spent in the last three years, and the amounts spent. [119036]

  Maria Eagle
  European Social Fund (ESF) projects usually operate across a number of constituencies. The following table lists projects in Bedfordshire which have been awarded ESF money since 2000 and which may include beneficiaries from south-west Bedfordshire.
  409W

  Table: ESF Projects Approved, 2000–03

  Organisation

  Project

  Amount approved (£)

  Alcohol Services for the Community (LSC CFO)

  Learning for Change

  60,593

  Bedfordshire and Luton CCTE

  Enhance

  74,898

  Bedfordshire College

  Way to Work Programme

  84,644

  Bedfordshire Pilgrims Housing

  Foyer Stepping Stones

  35,859

  Bedfordshire and Luton IAG Partnership (LSC CFO)

  Increasing Quality IAG Services

  91,000

  Bedfordshire Rural Communities (LSC CFO)

  Investing in your people

  163,000

  Bedfordshire Rural Communities (LSC CFO)

  Management Development

  37,992

  Bedfordshire County Council

  Bedfordshire & Luton Local Management Group 2001

  15,213

  Bedfordshire County Council

  Bedfordshire & Luton Local Management Group 2002

  14,297

  Bedfordshire County Council

  Bedfordshire & Luton Local Management Group

  18,458

  Bedfordshire County Council

  Co-financing Measure 1.1

  100,000

  Bedfordshire County Council

  Co-financing Measure 1.2

  185,000

  Bedfordshire County Council

  Co-financing Measure 2.2

  350,000

  Bedfordshire County Council

  Co-financing Measure 3.1

  960,000

  Bedfordshire County Council

  Co-financing Measure 4.2

  160,000

  Bedfordshire County Council

  Co-financing Measure 5.1

  337,000

  Bedfordshire County Council

  Business Environmental Training Initiative

  31,715

  Bedfordshire County Council

  Central Technical Assistance

  59,239

  Bedfordshire County Council

  Going To Work

  122,659

  Bedfordshire County Council

  SPICE

  202,050

  Better Prospects (LSC CFO)

  Technobabble

  91,200

  Business Link Bedfordshire and Luton

  ICT Multi Skills Programme

  183,300

  Cambridge On-line Learning (LSC CFO)

  Developing Managers

  50,400

  Chamber Business (LSC CFO)

  Enhanced Workforce Development

  179,000

  Chamber Business Luton (EEDA CFO)

  Choices in Care

  243,184

  Crabtree Development Consultants (LSC CFO)

  Building for the future

  49,910

  Crabtree Development Consultants (LSC CFO)

  Caring for Tomorrow

  69,735

  East of England Development Agency

  ASPEN

  262,140

  East of England Development Agency

  Luton Opportunities Phase 2

  276,338

  East of England Development Agency

  Luton Opportunity Phase 1

  375,989

  Education Business Enterprise (LSC CFO)

  Education and Business Enterprise

  37,930

  EEF Mid Anglian Association (LSC CFO)

  Achievement Partnership

  77,057

  Jobcentre Plus

  Co-financing Measures

  695,160

  Learning for Life Bedfordshire and Luton (LSC CFO)

  Empowerment for continued employment

  128,013

  Learning for Life Bedfordshire and Luton (LSC CFO)

  Workforce at Risk—Guidance Support

  136,006

  Learning for Life Bedfordshire and Luton

  Community Advice and Guidance

  87,256

  Bedfordshire and Luton LSC

  BOOST

  122,399

  Macro East Anglia (LSC CFO)

  Mentor and Youth Activity

  125,999

  New Bedfordshire Training Project

  Physical Ability Millennium

  74,822

  New Bedfordshire Training Project

  Physical Ability 2000

  20,203

  Opps (LSC CFO)

  Development skills in the retail sector

  56,550

  Protech Training (LSC CFO)

  Learning Leaders

  58,495

  Protech Training (LSC CFO)

  Second Chance

  52,210

  Protech Training (LSC CFO)

  Skillsbase

  154,770

  Qi Associates (LSC CFO)

  Making Business Better

  59,000

  South Bedfordshire Adult Education (LSC CFO)

  Link up to Learn

  95,855

  Teevan Consulting Network (LSC CFO)

  Results Driven Workforce Development

  99,000

  Trade Union Learning Link (LSC CFO)

  Bedfordshire & Luton Trade Union Learning Fund

  142,500

  University of Luton

  Community Parents Programme

  163,691

  University of Luton

  Film and Media Training Project

  80,882

  University of Luton

  Graduates with Dyslexia

  73,490

  University of Luton

  Griffin

  425,731

  University of Luton

  Language for e Business 2

  1,689,612

  University of Luton

  Languages for competitiveness

  1,064,618

  University of Luton

  Languages for e business

  287,113

  University of Luton

  Law for Life

  153,292

  University of Luton

  Leadership for Managers

  367,911

  University of Luton

  New Skills for Information Age II

  379,213

  University of Luton

  Next Step for Business

  30,400

  University of Luton

  Partnership Learning Centre

  30,600

  University of Luton

  Phoenix Project

  227,357

  University of Luton

  Toolkits For Competitiveness 02

  409,268

  University of Luton

  Webstep 3

  307,296

  University of Luton

  Webstep2

  307,106

  University of Luton (EEDA CFO)

  Broadband in Business

  156,205

  University of Luton (EEDA CFO)

  E-skills-in-company

  157,454

  Wildlife Trust for Bedfordshire (EEDA CFO)

  Working for Wildlife Trainee

  53,005

  Workbase Employment Service (LSC CFO)

  Learning in the Community

  34,500

  Befrienders

  Global Grants award

  3,500

  Dale Social Welfare Group

  Global Grants award

  3,406

  Downside Yoga

  Global Grants award

  3,575

  Dunstable and District Citizens Advice Bureau

  Global Grants award

  2,200

  Homes for Homeless

  Global Grants award

  4,500

  Hospice at Home Volunteers

  Global Grants award

  5,000

  LCET

  Global Grants award

  824

  Leighton Buzzard Mayday Trust

  Global Grants award

  465

  Luton & Bedfordshire Youth Association

  Global Grants award

  10,000

  Multiple Sclerosis Society

  Global Grants award

  1,000

  Parkinson's Disease Society

  Global Grants award

  2,000

  Notes:

  LSC CFO = Bedfordshire and Luton Learning and Skills Council Co-financing Organisation project.

  EEDA = East of England Development Agency Co-financing Organisation project.

  The Global Grants programme is operated by Bedfordshire and Luton Learning and Skills Council and provides awards of funding to small organisations. The organisations listed are based in South Bedfordshire.
  410W

  Local Government Finance
  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many council tax benefit claimants live in properties in Band F and above where council tax benefit is not restricted, broken down by(a) Government Office region, (b) type of tenure and (c) claimants who are (i) pensioners and (ii) non-pensioners. [119473]

  Maria Eagle
  The available information is in the tables.

  Number of recipients

  Council tax benefit recipients in property bands F, G and H where council tax benefit is not restricted—by Government Office Region—May 2001

  North East

  11,000

  North West

  11,000

  Yorks and the Humber

  2—

  East Midlands

  2—

  West Midlands

  11,000

  East

  11,000

  London

  7,000

  South East

  3,000

  South West

  11,000

  Wales

  11,000

  Scotland

  12,000

  Total

  19,000

  Council tax benefit recipients in property bands F, G and H where council tax benefit is not restricted—by tenure—May 2001

  LA tenant

  11,000

  Private regulated (excluding RSL)

  1 1,000

  Private deregulated (excluding RSL)

  1 1,000

  RSL tenants

  1 1,000

  Owner-occupier

  7,000

  Tenure unknown

  9,000

  Total

  19,000

  Council tax benefit recipients aged 60 and over3 and under 604 in property bands F, G and H where council tax benefit is not restricted—May 2001

  Age 60 and over

  13,000

  Under 60

  6,000

  Total

  19,000

  1 Figures under 2,500 are subject to a high degree of sampling variation and should be used only as a guide to the situation.

  2 Data are negligible.

  3 60 and over refers to cases where the benefit recipient and/or their partner is aged 60 and over.

  4 Under 60 refers to cases where the benefit recipient and their partner are aged under 60.

  Notes:

  1. The figures are based on a 1 per cent. sample and are therefore subject to a degree of sampling variation.

  2. The data refer to households claiming housing benefit which may be a single person, a couple or a family. More than one benefit household can live in one property, for example two or more adults in a flat or house-share arrangement.

  3. Figures are rounded to the nearest thousand.

  4. Totals may not sum due to rounding.

  5. Figures for any non-responding authorities have been estimated.

  6. Figures exclude any Second Adult Rebate cases.

  Source:

  Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit Management Information System, Annual 1 per cent. sample, taken in May 2001.

  Pension Credit
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many applications for the pension credit have been received from pensioners in Scotland broken down by(a) local authority and (b) parliamentary constituency. [117099]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is not available in the format requested. For information about applications for pension credit generally, I refer the hon. Member to the oral answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the hon. Member for Perth (Annabelle Ewing) on 9 June 2003,Official Report, columns 394–95W.

  Pensions
  Dr. Francis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what discussions he has had with other Governments in protecting final salary pension schemes; and if he plans to introduce a compulsory scheme of insurance for the protection of employees of insolvent firms; [117654]

  (2) what insurance schemes he plans to introduce to protect final salary pension schemes. [117650]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Department for Work and Pensions has carried out research into compensation schemes that protect final salary pension schemes in other countries including United States, Finland, Germany, and Japan.

  Departmental officials visited the US to explore their scheme (the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation) and reported their findings back to the Secretary of State. There has been ongoing correspondence between the Departments officials and their counterparts in the US. This is because the US pensions system, and their corporate structure more generally, is most similar to the UK position.

  As a result of research into schemes in other countries, discussions with US counterparts, and the strong support expressed by respondents for this option in the Pensions Green Paper "Simplicity, security and choice: Working and saving for retirement" (Cm 5677), we decided to introduce a compulsory compensation scheme for the protection of employees of insolvent firms.

  On June 11 2003 the Secretary of State announced our decision in the House, and we published an Action plan: "Simplicity, security and choice: Working and saving for retirement—Action on occupational pensions" (Cm 5835) setting out a package of measures to strengthen protection for pension scheme members and ease the burden on companies running schemes.

  We plan to establish a new independent organisation called the "Pensions Protection Fund" (PPF) in order to protect members of defined benefit pension schemes whose sponsoring employer has become insolvent. Where the pension scheme has insufficient assets to meet the PPF guarantee, the compensation scheme will pay the guaranteed level of benefits to scheme members as they fall due.
  413W
  The PPF will be funded by a levy on all defined benefit pension schemes. The levy will contain both a flat rate and a risk-based component, based on an assessment of the degree of underfunding in the particular scheme. Those schemes that are most underfunded will therefore have to pay a higher rate.

  Pensioners will be guaranteed to receive 100 per cent. of their pension, and non-pensioners will be guaranteed to receive 90 per cent. of the pension they have accrued.

  A cap will be introduced for non-pensioners so that any incentive for Directors to force their company into bankruptcy in order to get their pension is minimised.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his response of 7 May 2003,Official Report, column 701W, (1) whether his Department has conducted research to assess the public understanding of declines in private pension income that normally occur with increased longevity; [119218]

  (2) whether his Department has conducted research to assess the public's attitudes towards (a) how long they are likely to live on retirement and (b) how much income they are likely to have during their retirement. [119219]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Department has not carried out research to assess the public understanding of the relationship between private pension income and increased longevity.

  Regarding research on public attitudes, I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to him on 21 May 2003, Official Report, columns 798–99W. That research on attitudes to pensions and financial planning for retirement examined how long people of working age expected to remain retired, their income, pension provision and sources of income in retirement, and what they considered to be an adequate retirement income. A report is due to be published in July and, in accordance with normal practice, a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Additionally, a major cross-government study to which the Department contributes—the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing—is following a sample of people aged 50 and over for a number of years. The survey collects detailed information about income and assets and asks participants about the probability of their income keeping up with inflation. Over time this study will shed light on perceptions of changes in income as the population ages. A first report from the study is due in December 2003.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his response of 7 May 2003,Official Report, column 701W, what conclusions his Department has made about whether private pension income declines with longevity. [119220]

  Malcolm Wicks
  On average, older pensioners receive less income from all sources than younger pensioners. This is illustrated in the following table. There are two main reasons for the difference in occupational pension income. First, the rapid rise in occupational pension coverage in the late 1950s and 1960s has been more beneficial for the younger of today's pensioners. Secondly, before retirement the value of occupational pensions is broadly linked with earnings growth over 414W
  time. After retirement the value of pensions in payment is broadly linked to prices. Other things being equal, an older pensioner who has been retired for longer will, therefore, have a lower occupational pension than the equivalent younger pensioner.

  Information showing how incomes change over time at the individual or household level requires data on the same individuals over time. The English Longitudinal Study of Ageing is following a sample of people aged 50 and over for a number of years. The survey collects detailed information about income and assets and, in due course, will provide up-to-date information on how incomes from different sources, including, occupational and personal pensions, change overtime at the individual level. A report from the first wave of the study is due in December 2003 but information about changes over time will only be available after the second wave.

  Average income of pensioner units by source of income and age group

  £ per week

  Pensioner units where the head is under 75

  Pensioner units where the head is 75 or over

  Gross income

  280

  217

  Benefit income

  129

  127

  Occupational pension

  78

  56

  Investment income

  37

  27

  Earnings

  33

  5

  Other income

  3

  2

  Net income (before housing costs)

  236

  190

  Notes:

  1. All pensioner units are defined as: single (non-cohabiting people over the age of state pension age (65 and over for men, 60 and over for women) and couples (married or cohabiting) where the man is over the state pension age.

  2. Income from occupational pensions does not include income from personal pensions; the latter is included under investment income

  3. All incomes are shown as £ per week and at 2000–01 prices.

  Source:

  The Pensioners' Incomes Series 2000–01

  Post Office Card Accounts
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many customers have(a) been invited to take part in direct payment and (b) failed to respond to such an invitation, in respect of each benefit. [114044]

  Maria Eagle
  As at 6 June 2003, 2,800,000 customers have been invited to convert to Direct Payment. 706,000 customers have yet to respond.

  Pensions and Jobcentre Plus customers began their conversion process with controlled pilots. Their full conversion commenced on 1 April 2003.

  Poverty
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to change the definition of poverty he uses. [119481]
  415W
  Malcolm Wicks
  Poverty is a complex and multidimensional problem. The fourth Opportunity for all report (Cm 5598) sets out our strategy for tackling poverty and social exclusion and presents the latest information on the indicators used to monitor progress against our strategy.

  Specifically on child poverty, we launched Measuring Child Poverty: a consultation document in April 2002. We received over 80 detailed written responses to the consultation and have gathered feedback from workshops in London and Edinburgh with academics and organisations interested in child poverty measurement. We have also organised workshops in partnership with organisations such as the Children's Society, Barnardo's, Children in Wales and the European Anti-Poverty Network—to gather the views of children, young people and adults with direct experience of poverty.

  Measuring Child Poverty Consultation: preliminary conclusions was published in May 2003. This outlines recommendations and next steps based on a thorough analysis of the responses to the consultation. The report states that further technical work is necessary before finalising any new measure of child poverty and that we intend to publish final conclusions by the end of 2003.

  All reports are available in the Library.

  Women's Pensions
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what action he has taken to ensure that women who paid the married woman's national insurance contribution will receive a full pension. [118487]

  Maria Eagle
  The married women who opted to pay reduced rate contributions made an informed choice. They were required to give written notice of their decision on a form attached to a leaflet. The leaflet went to great lengths to describe the consequences of that decision and required them to sign a declaration that they had read and understood the leaflet. Employers could not make this decision on behalf of their employees. Women who chose to pay reduced rate national insurance contributions were given a certificate to give to their employer. An employer was not allowed to deduct reduced rate national insurance contributions without this certificate. It would be unfair to those married women who chose to pay the full rate contribution to retrospectively put married women who paid the reduced rate contribution in the same position.

  All married women are able to get a basic state pension based on their husband's contributions of 60 per cent. of his entitlement once both have reached state pension age and have claimed their state pension.

  In the recent pensions Green Paper: 'Simplicity, security and choice: Working and saving for retirement' we have proposed looking at how best to ensure that women are aware of their pension position and the choices they make.

  We recognise that the majority of pensioners are women and are committed to ensuring that our pension reforms improve women's pension rights. We have already done much to help. The introduction of stakeholder pensions, State Second Pension, winter fuel
  416W
  payments, improvements to the minimum income guarantee and, from this October, pension credit are, or will be, of particular help to women. We are also extending home responsibilities protection to foster carers to help protect their basic state pension entitlement whilst they are doing this valuable job. This will particularly benefit women since they form the majority of foster carers.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Supported Living Schemes
  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when the Government issued guidance to providers about supported living; when the deadline for funding such schemes is; and if he will make a statement. [119244]

  Keith Hill
  A considerable amount of guidance has been issued to local authorities and providers on the Supporting People programme, which may be found on the SPK web www.spkweb.org.uk. This guidance has been being issued over the last two years. The programme went live on 1 April, following the closure of the Transitional Housing Benefit Scheme. Local authorities were informed of the provisional amounts of funding in February 2003, and confirmation of final allocations is planned to take place in September following the receipt cif further returns from authorities. Chief authorities are now responsible for Supporting People and will decide, following reviews of current provision, which types and levels of service should be provided locally.

  Affordable Housing
  Andrew George
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many affordable housing units have been built in each year since 1997(a) with social housing grant, (b) with local authority social housing and (c) with no public funding (i) in England and (ii) in rural districts. [117984]

  Keith Hill
  The available information is presented in the following table.

  Affordable housing units built in England

  Units funded through:

  (a) Housing Corporation Social Housing Grant

  (b) Local Authority Social Housing Grant

  1997–98

  Deep rural

  1,128

  894

  Mixed rural

  4,172

  2,427

  All rural authorities

  5,300

  3,321

  All authorities

  29,551

  10,161

  1998–99

  Deep rural

  823

  718

  Mixed rural

  4,181

  1,764

  All rural authorities

  5,004

  2,482

  All authorities

  28,207

  9,714

  1999–2000

  Deep rural

  734

  728

  Mixed rural

  3,197

  1,652

  All rural authorities

  3,931

  2,380

  All authorities

  23,568

  8,396

  417W

  Affordable housing units built in England

  Units funded through:

  (a) Housing Corporation Social Housing Grant

  (b) Local Authority Social Housing Grant

  2000–01

  Deep rural

  802

  478

  Mixed rural

  3,190

  1,532

  All rural authorities

  3,992

  2,010

  All authorities

  20,867

  8,081

  2001–02

  Deep rural

  758

  399

  Mixed rural

  3,036

  1,283

  All rural authorities

  3,794

  1,682

  All authorities

  21,605

  6,628

  Note:

  Completions in respect of any schemes originally approved prior to 1996–97 involving both Housing Corporation and Local Authority Social Housing Grant support will be counted under both headings, but cannot be distinguished.

  Affordable housing schemes comprise those for rent (including Tariff, and Mixed Funded schemes); temporary social housing schemes (including MiniHag, and short-life housing); and shared or outright ownership schemes (including leasehold for the elderly).

  Source:

  Housing Corporation returns

  Information about the number of affordable housing units built without any form of public funding is not available.

  The Government have taken substantial measures to alleviate housing pressures in rural areas as part of the Rural White Paper and Sustainable Communities Plan.

  These include more than doubling the Housing Corporation's target for the number of approvals of homes in small rural settlements since 2000–01. The measures have increased the number of schemes in the pipeline and should start to flow through to an increased number of completed homes in rural areas over the next few years.

  We expect over 5,000 homes to be approved in small rural settlements alone between 2003–04 and 2005–06.

  Under the new regional arrangements it will be for Regional Housing Boards to consider rural housing needs in advising on the allocation of resources.

  Arson
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many homes were deliberately set on fire each day on average in each year from 1997 to 2001; and what the estimated cost to the fire service was in each year. [120032]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The following table contains information on malicious fires in dwellings in the UK from 1997 to 2001. Malicious fires are those where malicious or deliberate ignition was proved or suspected.

  Information on the cost to the fire service is not available before 1999. The estimates in the table are derived from applying an average fire service response cost for domestic fires of £2,800 to the totals.
  418W

  Malicious fires in dwellings, UK, 1997–2001

  Year

  Total

  Average per day

  Estimated annual cost (£ million)

  1997

  13,784

  38

  —

  1998

  13,359

  37

  —

  1999

  13,862

  38

  38.8

  2000

  14,215

  39

  39.8

  2001

  14,769

  40

  41.3

  Note:

  Data for 2001 are provisional. The definition of dwelling locations include caravans, houseboats and other non-buildings used solely as permanent dwellings

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many malicious car fires occurred in(a) 1997, (b) 1998 and (c) 1999; and what the estimated cost to the fire service was in each year. [120033]

  Mr. Raynsford
  In the UK there were 36,403 malicious car fires in 1997, 42,659 in 1998 and 56,207 in 1999. Malicious fires are those where malicious or deliberate ignition was proved or suspected.

  Information on the cost to the fire service is not held centrally before 1999, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Applying an average fire service response cost for vehicle fires of £880 to each malicious car fire attended gives an estimated total cost for malicious car fires of £49.5 million in 1999.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the cost to the UK economy was of arson in each year since 1997. [120034]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Information regarding the cost to the UK economy of arson is not held centrally, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  For England and Wales the estimated total cost to the economy of arson in 1999, when information was collected centrally for the first time, was £2.1 billion. In 2000 it was estimated as £2.2 billion; the estimated costs for 2001 are being prepared and will be published in due course.

  Bed and Breakfast
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many Castle Point families were housed in bed and breakfasts(a) in each of the last five years for which figures exist and (b) on 1 April 2003. [117996]

  Yvette Cooper
  Information reported by Castle Point District Council to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister on the numbers of homeless households housed by the authority in bed and breakfast (including any hotel annexe accommodation where some or all basic facilities are shared) is as follows:

  Castle Point DC: Homeless households in bed and breakfast at end of quarter

  March

  June

  September

  December

  1997

  14

  0

  12

  6

  1998

  10

  3

  1

  6

  1999

  n/r

  46

  34

  n/r

  2000

  41

  18

  32

  22

  2001

  n/r

  12

  10

  n/r

  2002

  20

  22

  17

  n/r

  2003

  6

  —

  —

  —

  n/r = not reported.

  419W
  Note:

  Figures include households accommodated pending completion of inquiries by the local authority.

  Source:

  ODPM P1(E) housing returns (quarterly)

  Last year the Government announced a new commitment to ensure that by March 2004 no family with children will be placed in bed and breakfast accommodation other than in an emergency, and even then for no more than six weeks. Corresponding information has been collected since March 2002, as part of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's monitoring of authorities' progress towards this target.

  Castle Point DC: Homeless households with dependent children or an expectant mother in bed and breakfast at end of month

  Number

  Of which: resident more than six weeks

  2000

  March

  16

  not collected

  June

  18

  not collected

  September

  15

  not collected

  October

  16

  15

  November

  17

  n/r

  December

  19

  15

  2003

  January

  23

  19

  February

  19

  16

  March

  6

  3

  April

  10

  2

  May

  12

  4

  Source:

  ODPM quarterly PIE returns; monthly monitoring returns (since October)

  Departmental Website
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what actions he has taken or is taking to ensure that the websites of his Department, its agencies and non-departmental public bodies are accessible to partially sighted and blind people; and if he will make a statement. [117351]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's web site (www.odpm.gov.uk) follows the Office of the e-Envoy's Guidelines for United Kingdom Government web sites to provide an accessible web site for partially sighted and blind people.

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

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

  E-Voting
  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to include e-participation in future e-voting pilots. [119614]

  Phil Hope
  Working with the Electoral Commission, the Office of the e-Envoy and local authorities, our aim is to develop a wide range of e-democracy initiatives, both e-voting and e-participation. We are seeking how best at local level differing initiatives may be integrated both to engage and to better inform voters while maintaining the integrity and security of the ballot.

  For e-participation we are providing £2 million of pump-priming funding as part of our e-democracy national project, inviting bids from local authorities, and we will be pursuing e-voting in the light of the Electoral Commission's evaluation of the May 2003 pilots.

  Graffiti
  Siobhain McDonagh
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what discussions his Department has had with representatives of the statutory undertakers about graffiti on their street furniture or other property; and if he will make a statement. [118090]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Home Office and the Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) have lead responsibility on preventing and tackling graffiti. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is working closely with DEFRA and the Home Office to ensure effective co-ordination of our policies in this area and decide what further action may need to be taken.

  Housing (Young People)
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, what advice he provides on obtaining housing for young people in housing need; and if he will make a statement. [113563]

  Keith Hill
  Under the homelessness legislation local authorities have a duty to provide advice and assistance about homelessness arid the prevention of homelessness. This service must be available free of charge to anyone in their district, including young people in housing need. Last year, the Government extended the groups who have a priority need for accommodation under the legislation. The new groups include a number of young homeless people, including 16 and 17-year-olds, care leavers aged 18 to 20 and people over 20 who are vulnerable as a result of having been in care (except those for whom local social services authorities have responsibility).

  Through the July 2002 Homelessness Code of Guidance for Local Authorities, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister issued guidance to housing authorities about discharging their duties under the homelessness legislation. The guidance emphasises that, in dealing with 16 and 17-year-olds who may have left home because of a temporary breakdown in their relationship with their family, local authorities should consider reconciliation with the family as a first response. It also highlights the fact that many young homeless applicants, particularly 16 and 17-year olds

  421W
  who are homeless and estranged from their family, will be vulnerable and in need of support. The guidelines also make it clear that housing authorities will need to recognise that accommodation solutions for this client group are likely to be unsuccessful if the necessary support is not provided and close liaison with social services and the Supporting People team will be essential.

  Advice on specialist services for homeless young people is also included in "Homelessness Strategies—A good practice handbook" issued by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister in March 2002.

  Specialist Personal Advisers in the Connexions Service also play a key role in ensuring that those under 20 in housing need are linked into housing advice services. They should also advise other Personal Advisers working with young people in housing need. The former Rough Sleepers Unit worked closely with the Connexions Service to develop the "Working together" guidance highlighting the strategic links that the Connexions Service should make with local authority homelessness strategies and voluntary agencies working with young people in providing effective housing advice.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister funds Shelter's National Homelessness Advice Service (NHAS). NHAS is a secondary advice and support service provided by Shelter in partnership with the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux and has been supported by Government since it was established in 1990. In addition, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister funds agencies such as Alone in London and Centrepoint who work with young people, to promote family mediation, re-establish contact and negotiate a return home or respite care.

HEALTH

  Buprenorphine
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans the Government have for a trial of buprenorphine in(a) British prisons and (b) heroin addicts seeking to stabilise. [118983]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Buprenorphine is already included in the treatment protocols developed in conjunction with national health service services at eight prison service establishments. The prison service's standard for clinical services for substance misusers requires every establishment which receives prisoners from court to have detoxification guidelines in place for at least one of methadone, lofexidine, and dihydrocodeine. It also states that, as new evidence becomes available on the chemical management of detoxification or abstinence, establishments should develop further treatment guidelines which are in line with those available in the NHS. Prison health keeps the question of a formal trial of buprenorphine in prisons in England under review, but expects its use to develop at a similar pace to the growth in its use in the community.

  More generally, the National Treatment Agency (NTA) has a responsibility to maintain the research base and to prioritise and disseminate findings to enhance
  422W
  quality of care. Consideration of the use of buprenorphine forms part of the NTA's activity, including receiving advice from experts on prescribing issues. The NTA advocates a range of treatment options following adequate assessment of need and works with local drug action teams (DATs) to ensure an appropriate range of provision is developed locally.

  There is already a body of evidence for the efficacy of buprenorphine in the treatment of opioid dependence. The level of evidence does not suggest that buprenorphine should replace methadone as a substitution treatment, but rather that buprenorphine should now be considered an evidence-based addition to the range of pharmacological maintenance treatments. Information from specialists indicates that there has been an increase in the use of buprenorphine in the United Kingdom as an alternative to methadone.

  Supported Living Schemes
  Mr. David Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the eligibility criteria are for supported living schemes; and if he will make a statement. [119242]

  Keith Hill
  The Supporting People programme provides support for people to live independently in the community, or to sustain their capacity to do so, through packages of support agreed between the client and support provider. There is a wide range of types of support (sheltered housing, for homeless people, for people with learning difficulties, and others) some of which have formal eligibility criteria, and others of which have looser assessment and application procedures. The Supporting People programme does not provide grants to registered care establishments (unless such funding was being provided under previous arrangements, where it is transitionally permitted to be paid).

  Accident and Emergency Patients
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of A and E patients were admitted, transferred or discharged in less than four hours in(a) England, (b) Diana Princess of Wales Hospital, Grimsby and (c) Scunthorpe District General Hospital in the last year for which figures are available. [116152]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The information requested is not available on an individual hospital site basis. In the third quarter of 2002–03, 78 per cent. of accident and emergency patients in England were admitted, transferred or discharged in less than four hours. In the same period, 88 per cent. of A and E patients at the Northern Lincolnshire and Goole Hospitals National Health Service Trust were admitted, transferred or discharged in less than four hours.

  Advocacy Groups
  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what discussions he has had with(a) the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport and (b) representatives of the lottery funding bodies about securing funding for advocacy groups. [119248]
  423W
  Dr. Ladyman
  No discussions have taken place with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport. It is for voluntary organisations to seek funding from other sources and other Government Departments, such as the community fund.

  The advocacy funding programme announced in Valuing People includes money to support development workers who work with existing advocacy groups to help them strengthen their services and also encourage the setting up of new ones. This could include giving advice on identifying possible funding sources.

  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans the Department has to fund citizens' advocacy groups, other than through the British Institute of Learning Disability; and if he will make a statement. [119249]

  Dr. Ladyman
  We announced in our report on learning disability, "Making Change Happen" (HC514-II), published in April 2003, that the implementation support fund would continue until March 2006. The fund will support the same areas of work as at present. The learning disability task force, which has members drawn from both the self and citizen advocacy movements, will be involved in discussions about the detailed use of the support fund.

  Mental health policies also focus on the use of advocacy. The draft Mental Health Bill, published on 25 June 2002, provides for the first time that specialist mental health advocacy must be available for all patients being treated under compulsory powers and their nominated persons. This new duty ensures that patients can have the help of specialist advocacy when it is most needed. There are also proposals in the draft Bill for safeguards, including access to advocacy, for some adult patients who have a long-term incapacity to consent and who are in a hospital or nursing home receiving treatment for a serious mental disorder.

  The Department is funding, to the value of £90,000 over three years, United Kingdom Advocacy Network (UKAN) to promote free and independent advocacy for every mental health service user; to keep user groups and advocacy projects in touch with each other; to promote the involvement of users in planning and running mental health services; and to develop standards in independent advocacy whereby they are establishing programmes of regional training courses for advocates. UKAN also employs a worker to work specifically on advocacy issues affecting black and minority ethnic groups.

  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to give adults with communications difficulties the right to representation by(a) a citizen's advocate and (b) another responsible individual; and if he will make a statement. [119252]

  Dr. Ladyman
  We consider it important that efforts are made by health and social care bodies to ensure that people with communications difficulties can make themselves understood and can understand what is being said to them. There are a number of ways of achieving this, including citizen advocacy, but we have no plans for imposing a particular pattern of service provision in this area.
  424W
  As part of the implementation of the "Valuing People" White Paper, we announced the creation of two new funds, the Implementation Support Fund and the Learning Disability Development Fund, to provide central support for key aspects of the strategy. Money from the Implementation Support Fund is being used to support and develop self and citizen advocacy projects across the country. Two voluntary organisations, the British Institute of Learning Disabilities (BILD) and Values Into Action (VIA) are running separate schemes to develop and fund citizen advocacy and self advocacy respectively on the Department's behalf. Both organisations have steering groups to oversee the projects and to ensure fairness in the way the funds are allocated.

  The draft Mental Health Bill, published on 25 June 2002, provides for the first time that specialist mental health advocacy must be available for all patients being treated under compulsory powers and their nominated persons. This new duty ensures that patients can have the help of specialist advocacy when it is most needed. There are also proposals in the draft Bill for safeguards, including access to advocacy, for some adult patients who have a long-term incapacity to consent and who are in a hospital or nursing home receiving treatment for a serious mental disorder.

  Those subject to compulsory powers under mental health legislation have need of effective advocacy services. Some may temporarily lose the freedom to make the choices they might otherwise make. Others, because of long-term mental incapacity, may not be able to make informed choices about their care and treatment.

  Agency Staff
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much each NHS trust spent on agency(a) doctors and (b) nurses in each of the past five years. [116890]

  Mr. Hutton
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) on 5 June 2003,Official Report, column 570W.

  Cleft Lip and Palate Services
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he has made of specialist services for cleft lip and palate at Alderhey Hospital, Liverpool; [115918]

  (2) what plans he has for consultation on the future of specialist cleft lip and palate services in the North West; and if he will make a statement. [115919]

  Dr. Ladyman
  [holding answers 4 June 2003]: The formal consultation on cleft lip and palate services in the North West is expected to commence in late June/ beginning of July 2003.

  The three strategic health authorities in the North West; Greater Manchester, Cheshire and Merseyside and Cumbria and Lancashire, will be the formal consulting bodies. It is proposed that one consultation document will be published and circulated to a wide range of organisations, in accordance with the new arrangements for patient and public involvement.
  425W
  The assessment of cleft lip and palate services at the Alderhey Hospital, Liverpool will be encompassed in the formal consultation of the future of cleft lip and palate services in the North West.

  Alzheimer's
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in England suffer from Alzheimer's disease. [118922]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The Department does not routinely collect such information. There are a number of different estimates available. The research quoted by the older people's national service framework in 2001 estimated that approximately 600,000 people in the United Kingdom have dementia. It is estimated that about 5 per cent. of people over 65 have dementia and that Alzheimer's disease causes up to 60 per cent. of cases of dementia.

  Antipsychotic Drugs
  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether his Department has commissioned a study of the long-term financial costs of(a) implements and (b) not implements the NICE recommendations in Technology Appraisal No. 43 for the use of modern antipsychotic drugs for the treatment of schizophrenia. [119207]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Department has no plans to commission a study on the cost implications of the implementation of the schizophrenia guidance. The National Health Service has been provided with sufficient funds to implement all National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) appraisal guidance as it is expected that the following of the best clinical practices, suggested by NICE, may result in an increase in cost.

  Asthma
  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people had asthma in(a) Jarrow constituency, (b) South Tyneside, (c) Tyne and Wear and (d) the UK (i) in 1980, (ii) in 1990, (iii) in 2000 and (iv) on the last date for which figures are available. [113270]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Information on the prevalence of individual conditions is not collected centrally. However, it is estimated that up to 4 per cent., of adults and 4 per cent. to 6 per cent., of children are affected by asthma severely enough to require medical supervision. This equates to around 2 million people in England or 2.5 million in the United Kingdom.

  Data are not collected at constituency level or for the year 1980, however data for hospital admissions due to asthma by District Health Authority for the years 1990–91 and by national health service trusts for the years 2000–01 are shown in the tables.
  426W

  Primary diagnosis asthma (ICD9 code 493), district health authorities, finished consultant episodes, count of finished in-year admissions, NHS hospitals, 1990–91

  District health authorities

  Total finished in-year admission episodes

  South Tyneside

  197

  Sunderland

  594

  North Tyneside

  320

  Newcastle

  611

  Gateshead

  255

  England

  75,872

  Primary diagnosis asthma (ICD10 code J45, J46), NHS trusts, finished consultant episodes, count of finished in-year admissions, NHS hospitals, 2000–01

  NHS trusts

  Total finished in-year admission episodes

  South Tyneside healthcare NHS trust

  190

  City hospitals Sunderland NHS trust

  341

  Gateshead health NHS trust

  342

  Newcastle upon Tyne hospitals NHS trust

  523

  Northumbria health care NHS trust

  397

  England

  60,376

  Notes:

  1. The primary diagnosis is the first of seven diagnosis fields in the HES data set, and provides the main reason why the patient was in hospital2. Figures in this table have not been adjusted for shortfalls in data

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Department of Health

  Audiology
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice his Department is issuing to schools regarding the risks to hearing associated with loud music. [117856]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  I have been asked to reply.

  Our health and safety advice to schools directs them to Health and Safety Commission guidance specific to schools, which mentions noise as a risk that should be managed. Health and safety law overall applies to everyone in a school, including pupils. We will repeat advice on exposure to noise in forthcoming guidance on acoustic design of schools.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what treatments are available to the hard of hearing on the NHS; and what support is given to deaf groups to assist people who have recently lost their hearing. [119561]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Following diagnosis of hearing impairment, the national health service will provide hearing aids or ear surgery—including fitting of cochlear implants and bone anchored hearing aids, as appropriate given the cause, type and degree of hearing impairment and the individual's needs. Support and hearing therapy available includes counselling, communication training/tactics, tinnitus therapy and help in coping with balance problems.

  The Department provides funding to a number of organisations who assist people with hearing loss. For the current financial year, this includes the Royal National Institute for Deaf People, National Association of Deafened People, National Deaf Children's Society, Link

  427W
  Centre for Deafened People, Deafblind UK, Sense, The Ear Foundation, Sign, UK Council on Deafness and the Council for the Advancement of Communication with Deaf People.

  Autistic Spectrum Disorders
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to change the provision of(a) supported and (b) sheltered accommodation for those suffering from autistic spectrum disorders. [119162]

  Dr. Ladyman
  It is the responsibility of the relevant local statutory bodies to ensure that the particular health and social care needs of each person with autism are met with genuine choices for both clients and families, through the most appropriate community based services, in a cost-effective way. These options may, of course, include sheltered or supported accommodation.

  We are currently investing £154,000 over three years, through the Section 64 Scheme of Grants to Voluntary Organisations, in the National Autistic Society project "Independence and Autism: Good Practice for Service Providers". This will support the development of new services to enable adults with autism or Asperger's syndrome to live independently.

  Bridlington Hospital
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many accredited training posts are in place at Bridlington Hospital; and what changes are planned to this number. [119170]

  Dr. Ladyman
  [holding answer 13 June 2003]: There are currently five accredited senior house officer training posts at Bridlington and District Hospital. Options for future numbers of accredited training posts at the hospital are currently being considered.

  Source:

  Scarborough and North East Yorkshire Healthcare NHS Trust

  British Sign Language
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many British Sign Language interpreters are provided by the NHS to teach and assist with treatment of people hard of hearing. [119562]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Information on British sign language (BSL) interpreters provided by the national health service is not held centrally. The provision of BSL interpreters is a local arrangement between the NHS service provider, client and local organisation providing a BSL interpreting service.

  Cancer
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cancer treatment centres there are(a) in the UK and (b) in each GO region; how many people were treated at each centre in 2002; and what percentage of these were teenagers being treated in (a) specialist teenage cancer units and (b) general cancer centres. [118156]
  428W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Cancer services in England are organised in 34 cancer networks. Cancer networks bring together primary, secondary, tertiary and voluntary service providers to plan and deliver specialist services across the patient pathway. Figures are available for the number of admissions by age group. In 2001–02, out of a total of 1,256,495 admissions for patients with cancer, 21,114 admissions were for patients between the ages of 13 to 19 years.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money is being allocated to cancer services in 2003–04 in North Yorkshire; and how much was allocated in 1997–98. [118501]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Resources for funding cancer services are included in general primary care trust allocations for 2003–04 and in the general allocations to health authorities for 1997–98. The Department does not have a figure for spending on cancer services in North Yorkshire in either year. We are confident that in 2003–04 national spending on cancer services will be over £570 million more than in 2000–01.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money was allocated to cancer services in Cornwall in each of the last 10 years. [119531]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Resources for funding cancer services are included in general primary care trust allocations for 2003–04 and in the general allocations to health authorities in the previous years. The Department of Health does not have a figure for total spend on cancer services in Cornwall. The South West Strategic Health Authority has advised that there has been significant investment in improving cancer services in Cornwall.

  This includes:
  Royal Cornwall Hospitals National Health Service Trust has invested over £7.2 million in improvements to its cancer services in the last two years;
  a new Clinical Oncology Department was opened at Treslike Hospital, Truro in April 2002, and received New Opportunities funding of £1 million for a new linear accelerator. The Department also has an additional chemotherapy suite; and
  in 2001–02, the cancer workforce at Treslike hospital increased by an additional four cancer nurse specialists; a lymphoedaema specialist; a speech and language therapist; and a cancer dietician. In 2002–03, a further five chemotherapy nurses and a senior cancer and palliative care pharmacist were recruited.

  Care Standards
  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations the Department has received from local authorities about the payment of the 12-week property disregard since the Care Standards Act 2000 came into force; and if he will make a statement. [119241]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The Department has received no representations from local authorities about the payment of the 12-week property disregard since the Care Standards Act 2000 was passed.
  429W
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what arrangements his Department has made to implement section 91 of the Care Standards Act 2000. [119801]

  Dr. Ladyman
  [holding answer 17 June 2003]: The arrangements for employers to access the Protection of Vulnerable Adults List will be implemented when the list comes into operation. Before that, we will be consulting on draft guidance on the arrangements underpinning the operation of the list.

  Carers
  Mr. McWalter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will establish a means of monitoring the quantity and quality of breaks for carers. [119423]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The carers grant, worth £100 million this year, provides money for local councils to provide short breaks for carers to enable them to continue in their caring role. Information on the number of breaks for carers is collected annually.

  To support provision of good quality carers services. the Department published "Quality Standards for Local Carer Support Services" in February 2000. Monitoring the quality of services for carers is undertaken as part of the Social Service Inspectorate performance assessment function.

  Children's Hospices
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much is available from the(a) Carer's Special Grant and (b) Quality Protects Programme to fund respite care at children's hospices; and how many hospices have received money from these grants. [119564]

  Dr. Ladyman
  20 per cent. of the carers grant is available for children's services. The grant is worth £100 million in 2003–04 and will continue until at least 2006, by which time it will be £185 million. Councils should use the grant to provide services breaks to carers. Guidance is available on the Government carers website at: www.carers.gov.uk Guidance on eligibility for accessing the Quality Protects (QP) programme funding is available at: http://www.doh.gov.uk/qualityprotects/ workpro/project 6.htm

  Disabled children are a priority area in the QP programme. From 2001–02 to 2003–04, £60 million for the children's services special grant has been earmarked for services for disabled children and their families, with £15 million in 2001–02 and 2002–03 and £30 million in 2003–04. One of the areas local authorities have been told that expenditure should be targeted on is increased provision of family support services, including short-term breaks.

  We do not collect details of how much of the funding is used to fund respite care at children's hospices, nor the number of hospices that have received money from these grants.

  Clinical Negligence
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health to what extent the NHS retains liability for compensating 430W
  patients for clinical negligence suffered whilst undergoing treatment abroad under the Patient Choice initiative; and if he will make a statement. [118698]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Government's policy is that patients travelling abroad for treatment should have the same rights and remedies as patients being treated in the United Kingdom.

  Where a national health service patient is referred for treatment abroad under the Patient Choice initiative, the referring NHS trust retains a responsibility towards that patient.

  The referring NHS trust will therefore retain primary liability for any actions for clinical negligence brought by a patient in respect of NHS-funded treatment overseas.

  Commission for Social Care Inspection
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the advice given to him by the Commission for Social Care Inspection. [120394]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) will provide the Secretary of State with advice on a variety of different subjects. Some of this may be appropriate for publication. However, in other cases it may contain confidential information. It will be a matter for CSCI with the Secretary of State as appropriate, to decide if its advice should be published.

  Community Equipment Services
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a progress statement on integration of community equipment services and additional funding for these services. [118543]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Of the 150 areas in England where there are expected to be integrated community equipment services, 111, or 74 per cent, are indicating currently that they will achieve local integration by the target date of April 2004. The integrating community equipment services team is supporting the remainder to achieve integration as soon as possible afterwards. Removal of the power of councils to charge for community equipment, which came into effect 9 June 2003, will further help integration by aligning councils' equipment charging regimes with the National Health Service.

  In addition to the amounts being made available in baseline funding, £7.4 million has been made available to councils for community equipment as part of the Access and Systems Grant in 2003–04. It is ring fenced for councils that are not three star or high-performing two star councils. The requirement to use this funding in a pooled budget has also given progress towards integration a boost.

  Continuing Care
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 8 May 2003,Official Report, column 867W, on continuing care, what plans he has to place results of the exercise in the public domain. [118808]
  431W
  Dr. Ladyman
  [holding answer 12 June 2003]: We have no current plans to publish the estimates of the number of people who may have been wrongly assessed under criteria not consistent with the Coughlan judgment.

  Copies of new continuing care criteria are available from strategic health authorities locally.

  Dentists
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dentists take patients in the(a) private sector, (b) public sector and (c) public and private sector in (i) England and (ii) the Durham constituency. [119091]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  At 12 June 2003, three general dental service (GDS) practices in the Durham constituency area were recorded on the www.nhs.uk website as accepting all categories of National Health Service patients for registration. In England, the total number of GDS practices accepting new patients was 4,917.

  NHS dental services are also available to patients who are not registered with a dentist, from GDS dentists providing treatment under the occasional treatment arrangements, from community dental services, personal dental services pilots and from hospitals.

  Information on dentists accepting new patients for private treatment only is not collected centrally. It is estimated that fewer than five per cent. of dental practices offer no NHS treatment at all.

  General dental practitioners are independent contractors and free to choose the proportion of NHS or private dentistry they provide in their practices. Most dentists choose to treat a combination of NHS and private patients.

  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS patients were registered with a dentist in each of the last five years in(a) England and (b) the City of Durham. [119093]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Information is not collected by cities. The information in the table shows the number of patients registered with a general dental service (CDS) dentist at 30 September for the years 1998 to 2002 for England, for the years 1998–2001 for Durham County Health Authority and for 2002, for Durham and Chester-le-Street Primary Care Trust. The City of Durham falls within these organisations.

  General Dental Service: Number of patients registered with a CDS dentist—1998 to 2002

  Thousands

  At 30 September

  Number of patients registered

  England

  1998

  23,497

  1999

  23,470

  2000

  23,658

  2001

  23,577

  2002

  23,471

  Durham County Health Authority

  1998

  304

  1999

  301

  2000

  307

  2001

  305

  432W

  General Dental Service: Number of patients registered with a CDS dentist—1998 to 2002

  Thousands

  At 30 September

  Number of patients registered

  Durham and Chester-le-Street Primary Care Trust

  2002

  63

  Registrations lapse if patients do not return to their dentist within 15 months and so the registration figures exclude patients who have not been to their GDS dentist within the past 15 months. Many people choose not to register with a GDS dentist and seek only to visit a dentist when they require treatment.

  Diabetes
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people were treated for diabetes(a) in England and (b) in each constituency in the last year for which figures are available. [118721]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I regret that this information is not available in the format requested. However, an estimated 1.3 million people in England have diagnosed diabetes. A population of 100,000 would be expected to include between 2,000 and 3,000 people with diabetes.

  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his target is for the number of diabetes specialists per head of population; what the current ratio is; and if he will make a statement. [118874]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Targets are not set centrally with regard to numbers of specialists per head of population.

  The table shows the number of Hospital medical staff and consultants with a specialty in endocrinology and diabetes mellitus per head of population. It also shows the figure per 100,000 head of population, which is the standard ratio used by the Department.

  Headcount

  England, as at 30 September 2001

  Number

  Per head of population1

  Per 100,000 head of population2

  All Grades

  987

  0.00002

  2.0

  Consultants

  428

  0.00001

  0.9

  1 Figures are rounded to 5 decimal places

  2 Figures are rounded to 2 decimal places

  Source:

  Department of Health Medical and Dental Workforce Census. 2001 ONS Population Census.

  Current workforce projections suggest that, by September 2004, there may be around 160 additional trained specialists available to take up consultant posts in endocrinology and diabetes mellitus, over a 2,000 baseline of 410.

  The national service framework for diabetes delivery strategy, published this year, calls for an examination of the workforce needed to deliver high quality diabetes care. Diabetes care, like many other conditions, relies on the valuable contribution of a wide range of staff as well

  433W
  as consultants. Combined with new ways of working, increasing numbers of staff will help to improve the experience of people with diabetes.

  The national service framework for diabetes delivery strategy is available in the Library.

  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his policy is on the number of diabetes specialists needed to cover the(a) Essex Strategic Health Authority and (b) Essex Rivers Healthcare Trust areas; and how many of the diabetes specialist posts are filled. [118878]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Department of Health does not set local targets for the number of diabetes specialists. It is for primary care trusts to decide the best approach to delivering the national standards to the communities they serve. Likewise, data on the local distribution of diabetes specialists are not held centrally.

  Government policy on diabetes is set out in the national service framework for diabetes delivery strategy, published this year. A copy of this is available in the Library.

  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what estimate he has made of the medical advantages of the provision of insulin pump therapy for type I diabetics; [119376]

  (2) what plans he has to make insulin pumps and infusion kits free of charge for diabetics who require them for medical reasons; [119377]

  (3) when he expects to implement the guidance provided by NICE on insulin pump therapy; [119378]

  (4) which health authorities provide insulin pump therapy at no cost; [119379]

  (5) what estimates he has made of (a) the numbers of type I diabetics who require insulin pump therapy and (b) the costs of providing this service free of charge. [119380]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [holding answer 16 June 2003]: The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) issued its full guidance on the use of continuous subcutaneous insulin infusion for diabetes in February 2003. The guidance states that insulin pump therapy is an option for some people with type 1 diabetes. Health professionals are expected to take full account of this guidance when exercising their clinical judgment. Hospital consultants may prescribe equipment such as insulin pumps as part of national health service treatment. It is for the NHS locally to make decisions about the best use of its resources on the basis of its priorities and needs.

  Enuresis
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on research into enuresis and the effects on long-term mental health. [114767]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Department of Health has not commissioned research into enuresis and its effect on long term mental health. However, there is a well documented association between enuresis and psychiatric disorder in community samples of children,434W
  though the causal relationships between the two may vary from child to child. A survey of the mental health of children and adolescents in Great Britain (commissioned by the Department of Health and conducted by the Office for National Statistics in 1999) found that 23 per cent. of children who wet their beds had a mental disorder compared with a prevalence of mental disorder of 10 per cent. for all children assessed in the survey. No single specific disorder nor psychiatric symptom is associated with enuresis and the majority of children cease to wet their beds by adolescence. Persistence of enuresis, particularly beyond adolescence and into adulthood, can cause significant distress, affect self-esteem and may interfere with the confidence required to establish close relationships.

  Hospital Funding
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funds were made available to(a) Newark Hospital, (b) Ashfield Community Hospital, (c) Mansfield Community Hospital and (d) the Kings Mill Centre for Health Care Services in (i) 2001, (ii) 2002 and (iii) 2003. [119222]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [holding answer 16 June 2003]: Figures are not collected on a hospital basis, but on a trust basis. The figures shown in the table are the total income, including all income from activities and all other operating income, for Sherwood Forest Hospitals National Health Service Trust and Newark and Sherwood Primary Care Trust.

  £000

  Total income

  Year

  Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Trust

  Newark and Sherwood Primary Care Trust

  2001–02

  102,773

  76,730

  2000–01

  74,933

  65,708

  1999–2000

  73,397

  —

  Notes:

  1. In 1999–2000, Sherwood Forest NHS Trust was formerly known as The Kingsmill Centre for Healthcare Services.

  2. With effect from 1 April 2001, Sherwood Forest Hospitals absorbed the acute services of Central Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust. Because of reconfigurations to services within the Nottinghamshire area, the Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Trust income is not directly comparable over this period.

  3. Primary Care Trusts were not established until 2000–2001.

  Source:

  Audited summarisation schedules of the Kingsmill Centre Healthcare Services NHS Trust 1999–2000 (see note 1), Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Trust and Newark and Sherwood Primary Care Trust 2000–01 to 2001–02.

  Genetic Testing
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who is being consulted and what guidelines are planned to ensure that patients who take advantage of genetic testing to identify and combat hereditary or latent genetic predispositions toward certain conditions do not have such information made available to third parties through doctors and other medical practitioners; and if he will make a statement. [118177]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Data Protection Act 1998, the Access to Medical Reports Act 1998 and the common law of confidentiality already provide the
  435W
  foundation for ensuring the confidentiality of such information. Following a public consultation exercise, which finished in January 2003, the Government will also be introducing a Code of Practice on confidentiality for the national health service in summer 2003.

  Hayfever
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent research he has carried out to establish the extent to which the incidence of hayfever can be ascribed to environmental causes. [119540]

  Dr. Ladyman
  [holding answer 16 June 2003]: The main Government agency for research into the causes of and treatments for disease is the Medical Research Council (MRC) which receives its funding from the Department of Trade and Industry via the Office for Science and Technology.

  The MRC spent an estimated £11.9 million in 2001–02 on its respiratory disorders portfolio. Although this does not include any specific research into hayfever, it does include work on allergies.

  There is no ongoing research in the Department of Health into hayfever but the Department commissioned a study on air pollution and general practitioner consultations for allergic rhinitis (hayfever) from St. George's Hospital, London, as part of its last air pollution and health research programme. The study (by Hajal et al) was published in the American Journal of Epidemiology (volume 153, page 704) in 2001.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the number of hayfever sufferers in each year since 1997, broken down by county; and if he will make a statement on current trends. [119541]

  Dr. Ladyman
  [holding answer 16 June 2003]: It is not possible to state the number of people who have been diagnosed as suffering from allergies that include hayfever. This is due to the fact that many people diagnose themselves, and buy remedies at their local pharmacy, or are diagnosed by their general practitioner or appropriate clinic. It is however estimated that at least 15 per cent. of the population is affected by some form of allergy.

  Information on the number of admissions to national health service hospitals in England between 1997–98 and 2001–02 where the primary diagnosis could be described as hayfever (allergic rhinitis due to pollen), is shown in the table.

  Primary diagnosis (ICD10 J30.1) allergic rhinitis due to pollen, finished consultant episodes (FCEs), count of finished in year admissions, NHS hospitals, England 1997–98 to 2001–02

  FCEs

  1997–98

  69

  1998–99

  88

  1999–2000

  182

  2000–01

  95

  2001–02

  119

  Social Services
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on why, under Clause 73 of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill, the Commission for Social Care Inspection will have a duty to keep only the Secretary of State informed about the provision of English local authority social services. [120279]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The Commission for Social Care Inspection will be under a duty to lay an annual report of its findings before Parliament and to make public the results of any reviews and investigations that it has carried out into English local authority social services. Since the Secretary of State for Health has overall responsibility for the provision of social care throughout England, Clause 73 of the Bill makes specific provision for the Commission to keep him informed. This is necessary for the Secretary of State to fulfil his accountability to Parliament for services and to make him aware of any issues on which he may need to take particular action.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reasons, under Clause 81 of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill, the Commission for Social Care Inspection must obtain the consent of the Secretary of State before publishing statements about the criteria to be used in the exercise of its functions. [120327]

  Dr. Ladyman
  It is the responsibility of Ministers to set priorities and standards for social services on behalf of service users and the public generally. The Commission for Social Care Inspection's (CSCI) inspection criteria must be approved by Ministers to ensure they reflect these priorities and standards.

  CSCI will, of course, be responsible for drawing up the criteria in the first instance. This will allow CSCI to satisfy itself that the criteria against which local authorities will be reviewed are appropriate and reflect the needs of service users.

  Kidney Disease
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he has taken to reduce the period between(a) the emergence of symptoms and (b) diagnosis, and referral to nephrologists for kidney patients; and what estimate he has made of the costs of such changes. [119334]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [holding answer 13 June 2003]: Guidelines are being developed by the relevant professional organisations for the referral and early management of people with chronic kidney disease. For people with diabetes, the National Institute for Clinical Excellence has published guidelines for regular testing for renal disease in its document, "Management of Type 2 diabetes: Renal disease-prevention and early management".

  Health Services (Leeds)
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) in-patients and (b) out-patients (i) the Leeds acute teaching hospitals NHS trust and (ii) its predecessor acute trusts treated in each year since 1995. [114815]
  437W
  Dr. Ladyman
  The information requested is shown in the tables.

  Hospital episode statistics: finished consultant episodes (FCEs1) for the Leeds teaching hospitals NHS trust, 1997–98 to 2000–01

  Period

  Number of in-patients treated

  1997–98

  2197,138

  1998–99

  203,104

  1999–2000

  197,381

  2000–01

  207,764

  2001–02

  204,307

  1 An FCE is defined as a period of patient care under one consultant in one health care provider. The figures do not represent the number of patients, as one person may have several episodes within the year.

  2 In 1997–98 the hospital was two organisations. St. James and Seacroft university hospitals NHS Trust (104,538) and United Leeds teaching hospital (92,600). Data in this table are not grossed for both coverage and unknown/invalid clinical data.

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Department of Health.

  Period

  Out-patients first attendances seen

  Subsequent attendances seen

  Total attendances seen

  Leeds teaching hospitals NHS trust

  2002–03

  42,654

  137,070

  179,724

  2002–03 Quarter 2

  42,419

  140,016

  182,435

  2002–03 Quarter 1

  42,050

  139,371

  181,421

  2001–02

  172,679

  540,788

  713,467

  2000–01

  180,943

  569,441

  750,384

  1999–2000

  175,990

  555,463

  731,453

  1998–99

  181,372

  634,317

  815,689

  St. James's and Seacroft university hospital

  1997–98

  75,988

  255,799

  331,787

  1996–97

  72,766

  236,428

  309,194

  1995–96

  74,506

  233,073

  307,579

  United Leeds teaching hospitals

  1997–98

  105,688

  366,475

  472,163

  1996–97

  99,752

  424,546

  524,298

  1995–96

  93,330

  425,245

  518,575

  Mental Health
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what level of funding per capita is being spent by(a) South Sefton Primary Care Trust and (b) Southport and Formby Primary Care Trust on services for people with mental health difficulties in the current financial year; and what the average spending per capita is of Primary Care Trusts in England. [116278]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The average spending per capita on services for people with mental health difficulties in the current financial year is £153.82 by South Sefton Primary Care Trust and £130.51 by Southport and Formby Primary Care Trust. Figures for the whole of England are not collated.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much has been spent on mental health services in the London borough of Wandsworth in each of the last three years. [118926]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Data on expenditure by the London borough of Wandsworth on personal social services (PSS) for those aged 65 or over with mental health needs, expenditure by the national health service 438W
  on mental health solely within Wandsworth, and NHS expenditure on primary care mental illness are not available centrally.

  Gross expenditure by the London borough of Wandsworth on PSS for adults under 65 with mental health needs for the years 1999–2000 to 2001–02 (the latest year for which data are available) is shown in the table.

  Expenditure (£ million)

  1999–2000

  7.8

  2000–01

  6.9

  2001–02

  6.2

  Source:

  Form RO3 for 1999–2000, form PSS EX1 for 2000–01 and 2001–02

  Expenditure on the commissioning of secondary care mental illness in the Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth Health Authority area for 1999–2000 to 2001–02 (the last year for which data are available) is shown in the table.

  Expenditure (£ million)

  1999–2000

  59.4

  2000–01

  64.8

  2001–02

  71.2

  Sources:

  1. Health authority audited summarisation forms 1999–2000 to 2001–02.

  2. Primary care trust audited summarisation schedules 2000–01 and 2001–02.

  Ms Buck
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many individuals, and how many per 1,000 of the adult population, were detained under the provisions of the Mental Health Act in each local authority area in England in(a) 1990, (b) 2000 and (c) 2002. [119422]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The information is not collected in the form requested.

  However, the information available has been placed in the Library. This shows numbers of detentions under the Mental Health Act 1983 in national health service facilities, excluding high security psychiatric hospitals, aggregated by health authority area in England. Data for 1989–90 are given at England level only.

  Neurology
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on neurology services. [118998]

  Dr. Ladyman
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given to the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess) on 9 June 2003,Official Report, column 690–91W, by the then Minister of State.

  Newark Hospital
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what changes there have been in the services offered by Newark Hospital over the last three years. [119223]
  439W
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [holding answer 16 June 2003]: All of the local health and social care organisations within north Nottinghamshire were created post-April 2000.

  A merging of acute services of Central Nottinghamshire Healthcare National Health Service Trust into Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Trust came into effect from 1 April 2001. This resulted in an increase in income for the trust between 2000–01 and 2001–02.

  A new clinical strategy was agreed for Newark Hospital in 2002. The implementation of this strategy will require additional investment into the hospital. This investment will be funded from sources such as the Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Trust block capital allocation and the local delivery plan for 2003–04 to 2005–06.

  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans there are to create a paediatric facility at Newark Hospital. [119224]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [holding answer 16 June 2003]: There is already a paediatric outpatient service available at Newark Hospital. The clinical strategy for the hospital, which was established in 2002, includes the retention of that service.

  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans there are to change acute services offered in Newark hospital in the immediate future. [119225]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [holding answer 16 June 2003]: There are no plans to change the existing acute services provided by Newark hospital.

  There is agreement between Sherwood Forest hospitals national health service trust and the three local primary care trusts—Newark and Sherwood PCT, Ashfield PCT and Mansfield PCT—that acute services in central Nottinghamshire will be delivered from King's Mill and Newark hospitals.

  NHS Teams
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many of the(a) early intervention teams, (b) crisis resolution teams and (c) assertive outreach teams proposed in the NHS plan are in place; and whether the targets for establishing them will be met by the end of 2003. [120382]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The most recent data from the mental health service mapping database show that 24 early intervention teams, 97 crisis resolution teams, and 212 assertive outreach teams are in place. Good progress is being made to achieve the set targets as stated in the NHS Plan.

  NHS Trusts/MPs Meetings
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many times(a) North Cheshire Hospitals NHS Trust and (b) Warrington Primary Care Trust have met each Member of Parliament in their area in the past year. [118883]

  Dr. Ladyman
  This information is not held centrally by the Department.

  Nursing Homes
  Mr. Steinberg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he has taken in the last 12 months to inspect nursing homes in the private sector. [119090]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The National Care Standards Commission has been set up to register and inspect care and other homes in the private sector in England. It is an independent regulatory body created by the Care Standards Act, which aims to raise the standards of care offered by registered services. It is accountable to the Secretary of State for Health and to Parliament for its actions.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health why the hon. Member for West Chelmsford's written question No. 118905 received a holding answer when the information required was published by the Department of Health five days prior to the date for answer. [120393]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The information requested was published as a Statistical Press Notice on 6 June 2003, as part of the Department's programme of publishing statistical information. However, the process of preparing replies to Parliamentary Questions does take a certain amount of time. I regret that, on this occasion, the hon. Member did not receive a timely reply to his question.

  Patient Compensation
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he plans to make additional funding available to strategic health authorities to meet the cost of recompensing patients who are found to have been wrongly denied access to NHS continuing care. [118031]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Additional funding has been made available in 2002–03.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimates he has made of the possible costs to individual(a) strategic health authorities and (b) primary care trusts of recompensing patients found to have been wrongly denied access to NHS continuing care. [118032]

  Dr. Ladyman
  In their 2002–03 annual accounts, national health service organisations are required to include a provision for expenditure, where it is probable that future payments will be required and a reliable estimate of these payments can be made.

  The 2002–03 audited annual accounts will be available locally in September and centrally in autumn.

  Pay Audits
  Angela Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health 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. [117437]
  441W
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  We have completed the review of our pay systems in line with the Government's commitment in response to the Equal Opportunities (EOC) Task Force "Just Pay" report. There was found to be no significant disadvantages revealed by the equal pay review, although there is some further consideration being given in three areas.

  A copy of our report, which includes the action plan, has been placed in the Library.

  Prescriptions
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much a pharmacist received for processing a prescription in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [119270]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Remuneration paid to community pharmacies is intended to cover the generality of the national health service pharmaceutical services they provide. The scope of these services is not restricted just to dispensing prescriptions and has changed over time.

  The dispensing fees paid to community pharmacy contractors vary according to the item prescribed. The large majority of prescriptions attract a basic dispensing fee, the current rate of which is 94.6 pence per item. However, if the total remuneration paid to community pharmacies in each year is divided by the number of dispensing fees paid, the result is as shown in the table.

  Value of payments made to community pharmacies in England and Wales, per dispencing fee received

  Number of dispensing fees paid (prescription items dispensed) in millions

  Total paid (£ million)

  Dispensing fee paid per prescription item dispensed (£)

  1996–97

  487.9

  693.6

  1.42

  1997–98

  505.8

  712.2

  1.41

  1998–99

  518.3

  724.7

  1.40

  1999–2000

  535.7

  760.8

  1.42

  2000–01

  561.8

  784.9

  1.40

  2001–02

  595.5

  798.6

  1.34

  2002–03

  633.7

  834.7

  1.32

  Renal National Service Framework
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what progress has been made on the renal National Service Framework; and if he will make a statement; [119332]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the costs arising from the renal National Service Framework; and if he will make a statement. [119333]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [holding answers 13 June 2003]: The renal national service framework will be published in due course. It will set national standards and provide a national direction for renal services that will need to be achieved over 10 years. The renal standards will sit alongside a programme for reform and sustained investment in the national health service.

  Rheumatoid Arthritis
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many PhD students, involved in rheumatoid arthritis research, are funded by(a) public and (b) charitable funds. [118450]

  Dr. Ladyman
  There are no PhD students involved in rheumatoid arthritis research from the national primary care awards, national public health awards, national clinician scientist awards, complementary and alternative medicine awards or nursing and allied health professions awards.

  The main Government agency for research into the causes of and treatments of disease is the Medical Research Council, which receives its funding from the Department of Trade and Industry via the Office of Science and Technology. It does not hold information on the projects being undertaken by PhD students funded by itself.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will list the primary care trusts that do not fund anti-TNF therapy for patients with rheumatoid arthritis where that treatment is clinically indicated; [118451]

  (2) what (a) national and (b) local departmental targets relate to the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. [118452]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) recommended the use of anti-TNF therapy in March 2002. We have issued directions obliging strategic health authorities and primary care trusts to provide appropriate funding for treatments recommended by NICE. This is in line with our manifesto commitment to ensure that patients receive drugs and treatments recommended by NICE on the national health service if considered appropriate by their clinicians. The Commission for Health Improvement (CHI) and NICE have agreed a methodology for CHI to incorporate the monitoring of NICE guidance in its clinical governance reviews. Specifically CHI now looks to see if NHS trusts have mechanisms in place to implement and comply with NICE guidance. CHI will also support and facilitate clinicians to discuss when NICE guidance is and is not followed on an individual patient basis.

  There are no specific national targets relating to the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis. However, maximum waiting times have already been reduced to 21 weeks for a first out-patient appointment from general practitioner referral, and national targets have been set for further reductions. Rheumatoid arthritis patients waiting for first out-patient appointments stand to benefit from these improvements.

  Information about local targets relating to the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis is not collected centrally.

  Royal Shrewsbury Hospital
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) NHS and (b) non-NHS staff are employed by the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital Trust, broken down by department. [119384]
  443W
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The latest figure available for national health service staff employed by the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital NHS Trust is for 2001, when there were 2,605 NHS staff employed by the trust.

  Information on the number of non-NHS staff employed by the trust is not held centrally.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost per week to each department of the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital Trust is of employing non-NHS staff. [119385]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The information is not held centrally in the format requested.

  Non-national health service staff expenditure is collected by staff classification and not by hospital department.

  The total salary and wage cost of the Royal Shrewsbury Hospital NHS Trust employing non-NHS staff, for the whole of the financial year 2001–02. is shown in the table.

  Non-NHS staff1 (by NHS staff classification)

  Expenditure (£)

  Medical

  456,690

  Dental

  0

  Nursing, midwifery and health visiting

  750,846

  Scientific, therapeutic and technical staff

  0

  Administrative and clerical

  15,506

  Healthcare assistants and other support staff

  45,805

  Maintenance and works staff

  0

  Ambulance staff

  0

  Other employees

  22,275

  Total non-NHS staff salaries and wages

  1,291,122

  1 Non-NHS staff expenditure figures include all agency staff and any other staff not directly employed by individual NHS trusts, primary care trusts and health authorities.

  Source:

  Annual financial returns of the Royal Shrewsbury NHS Trust 2001–02.

  Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Trust
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans there are to change services available in each of the four hospitals comprising Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Trust. [119221]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [holding answer 16 June 2003]: There are plans to redevelop the services provided by Sherwood Forest Hospitals National Health Service Trust through the modernisation of acute services (MAS) project.

  The MAS project incorporates a complete remodelling of the way in which acute healthcare services are provided across central Nottinghamshire, with the population of central Nottinghamshire benefiting from a truly modern and dependable acute healthcare service.
  444W
  The plans for redevelopment of Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Trust are currently at outline business case stage (OBC), following the approval of the first document—the strategic outline case (SOC), by the Secretary of State for Health in February 2001.

  The SOC was approved on the basis that the MAS scheme is procured through the Government's Private Finance Initiative (PFI).

  Details of the MAS outline business case for Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Trust can be accessed from the board meetings section on Trent Strategic Health Authority's website at www.trent-sha.nhs.uk/ board meetings/16 4 03/

  Waiting Lists/Times
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in the Mid-Essex Hospital Trust area were waiting for in-patient treatment in the most recent month for which he has statistics. [118905]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [holding answer 12 June]: There were 8,634 patients waiting for in-patient treatment at Mid-Essex Hospital Services National Health Service Trust at the end of April 2003.

  Source:

  Department of Health Monthly Monitoring Figures

  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in(a) North East Lincolnshire PCT and (b) North Lincolnshire PCT waited over 12 months for an operation in each quarter from 31 March 2002. [119111]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Primary Care Trust (PCT)

  Quarter ended

  North East Lincolnshire PCT

  North Lincolnshire PCT

  June 2002

  5

  4

  September 2002

  1

  1

  December 2002

  1

  1

  March 2003

  0

  0

  Source:

  Department of Health Form Q FOI (Commissioner based hospital waiting list statistics)

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the most recent quarter's statistics on accident and emergency waiting times will be available. [116878]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The release date for accident and emergency activity for the period January to March 2003, is 20 June. Release dates for quarterly information on accident and emergency services are announced in national statistics updates—the release dates diary for national statistics—available at: http:// www.nationalstatistics.org.uk/pdfdir/updates.pdf

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Yarl's Wood Inquiry
  The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Beverley Hughes)
  In a statement on 25 February following the disturbance at Yarl's Wood removal centre on 14/15 February, the Home Secretary indicated that Stephen Moore, a member of the Prison Service, would conduct an over-arching investigation of the events. He has made significant progress with this investigation, but it cannot be completed until any associated court proceedings have concluded. The Prisons and Probation Ombudsman, Stephen Shaw, has provided an independent overview of the work done so far.

  In view of the interest which has been shown in the events at Yarl's Wood, I have concluded that it would be preferable for the outcome of the investigation to be fully independent, and have therefore asked Stephen Shaw to take overall responsibility for the investigation (with the same terms of reference) and bring it to a conclusion. He will submit his report to the Head of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate in due course. I am grateful to Mr Moore for his important contribution to the investigation thus far.

  HMP Woodhill
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Paul Goggins)
  The report of the investigation into the circumstances surrounding the act of self-harm by Ian Huntley was received by the Prison Service on Friday 13 June. I received that report together with the Prison Service's response to it in my office on Tuesday 17 June. Whilst the investigation report itself is, for a variety of reasons, confidential, I am providing this statement because I want Parliament and the public to have confidence that this matter has been properly dealt with. I have been mindful of the Attorney General's guidance concerning the publication of matters relating to Mr Huntley prior to his trial, to matters of security and medical confidentiality.

  The report highlights a number of serious systems failures. I can confirm that these have already been addressed and corrected. In essence the systems for managing Ian Huntley concentrated more on protecting him from other prisoners than on the risk of self-harm. The Prison Service should have given equal importance to both risks. The report also highlighted the risks in managing a single prisoner in special conditions for a protracted period. The arrangements for briefing staff supervising Mr Huntley and the arrangements for overall management oversight were not robust enough to combat complacency and conditioning. Finally, the
  14WS
  procedures for dispensing medication to Mr Huntley fell well short of accept able standards and failed to take into account the risk of self-harm.

  The report acknowledges the complex multifunctional role of Woodhill Prison and the challenge this poses to managers and staff but I have made it clear that the safe custody of Mr Huntley is an absolute priority for the Prison Service and that revised arrangements for his supervision must reflect this. The report concludes that lines of accountability for the management of Mr Huntley were unclear. I have made it clear to the Director General that there must be clear lines of accountability in the future so that all staff are fully aware of their responsibilities and that management oversight is to a consistently high standard. The report did not recommend that any disciplinary action be taken against individual officers.

  The Investigating Officer concluded that:
  Any failures were corporate failures and not the failure of any one individual.
  The management arrangements for Mr Huntley lacked clarity, were not communicated well and failed to respond effectively to the developing needs of the circumstances.
  The day-to-day management of this situation had effectively become the responsibility of one manager who had a wide range of other responsibilities. This was not appropriate.
  There were failings in communication and input from senior managers.
  There were deficiencies in searching practices, which were predictable and did not include the items stored outside of his cell.
  The management of staff deployed to carry out the task of supervision of Mr Huntley did not fully recognise the full risks inherent in working long shifts without relief.
  Information was not systematically reviewed. There was a time lapse in some cases between information being submitted and consideration being given to that information.
  Staff must have the appropriate resources, instructions and support to enable them to remain vigilant at all times they are carrying out this duty.

  The recommendations of the Investigating Officer include:
  One operational Manager should have responsibility for the care of Mr Huntley.
  A clear and effective structure for the management of Mr Huntley must be established and published to staff.
  A multi disciplinary team should review the current operational instruction. An amended instruction must be authorised by the Governor.
  The amended operational instruction must be communicated to all staff who have contact with Mr Huntley. The implications of the new instruction should be communicated to Mr Huntley.
  A multi disciplinary team should meet weekly to review the management of Mr Huntley.
  Staff still in their probationary period should not supervise Mr Huntley.
  All recommendations made by Prison Service Safer Custody Group should be actioned.

  15WS
  The searching strategy should be reviewed. There should be management oversight of the reviewed strategy.
  A review of security intelligence systems, including use of CCTV, at Woodhill should be carried out by an independent person.
  All recommendations made in relation to medical issues should be implemented.
  There should be an audit of prescribing practice after three months.
  Staff should be reminded of their personal responsibilities in relation to the supervision of prisoners.
  The findings of the significant event audit should be circulated to Health Care staff who should be engaged in resolving issues raised and implementing change.
  There should be an audit of compliance with the administration of medication policy after three months.
  There must be a specific Integrated Care Plan for Mr Huntley, which should record all issues relating to him. This document should be reviewed daily and submitted to the Governor weekly.

  The Prison Service has advised me that all the recommendations in the report have been accepted and have been implemented with effect from Monday 16 June. Revised and comprehensive operational instructions have been put in place that will be overseen by a clearly identified manager at all times who will report direct to the Governor. The instructions are underpinned by an integrated care plan in which comprehensive written details of all events concerning Mr Huntley will be recorded. This plan will be reviewed daily. Medical procedures have also been reviewed in consultation with the appropriate Primary Care Trust and a multi-disciplinary team will supervise Mr Huntley's health care. The effectiveness of these revised procedures will be formally reviewed each week by the accountable manager together with those other managers who have designated responsibilities laid down in the operational instructions. The Governor will supervise their work. The Prison Service will also make arrangements for regular audits of the operational instructions to be carried out independently of the establishment to provide assurance that full compliance with the instructions is being maintained. Audit reports will be sent to the Deputy Director General for his personal attention.

  I have made it clear to the Director General that the conclusions of the report describe a completely unacceptable situation, that the lessons to be learned must be applied immediately and that the highest standards of supervision must be sustained from now on.

  Proceeds of Crime Act
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Caroline Flint)
  I am pleased to announce that the first annual report of the appointed person under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 has been laid before Parliament. The appointed person is an independent person who scrutinises the use of the new search power introduced to support the scheme to seize and forfeit criminal cash.
  16WS
  The report gives the appointed person's opinion as to the circumstances and manner in which the search powers conferred by the Act are being exercised. I am pleased that the appointed person, Andrew Clarke, has expressed satisfaction at the operation of the search power in its first three months.

  Over £12½ million had been seized under the scheme by the end of March. While most of the cash was discovered when police and customs officers were conducting searches under other legislation, it is significant and very good news that over £2 million was found and seized as a direct result of this new search power. The power is a welcome addition in the fight against crime and the report shows that its operation has been, and will continue to be, closely monitored.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Supporting People Programme
  The Minister for Housing and Planning (Keith Hill)
  The Supporting People Programme aims to improve the quality of life of vulnerable people by supporting them to live independently in the community. On 19 February my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) announced the total provisional amounts of Supporting People Grant. At that point I announced that as part of this we had made a provisional allocation for services in the pipeline, which are currently incurring capital spend, and which require revenue funding once the buildings are completed. These allocations were subject to confirmation of progress, including amounts.

  I have today confirmed the amounts allocated to each authority in respect of pipeline services. These amount to some £29m in this year and £52m in next. Careful consideration has been given to ensure that pipeline funding is focused on services which have reached an advanced stage of capital commitment. We have also taken a view on the level of funding requested, and in certain cases allocated a reasonable level of funding based on the overall pattern of costs for similar services regionally. We have also taken into account the fact that Supported Housing Management Grant previously awarded by the Housing Corporation will be available to some of the services. Authorities, in conjunction with their provider partners, must now decide how to make best use of these funds.

  The programme is now entering the phase of review and quality assurance. Final allocations for 2003–04, and allocations for 2004–05 will be announced in the autumn following the final reconciliation of Supporting People costs with the previous funding sources.

  Amongst the funded pipeline services are many innovative examples of new services to deliver high quality services to vulnerable people, and enable them to live more independently. This confirms the potential of the Supporting People programme to make a real difference in helping vulnerable people to live as part of their local community, and its key role in preventing the need for more crisis and institutional care.

  Private Landlords Projects
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Yvette Cooper)
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is allocating £2 million to help tackle private rented sector problems in areas of low housing demand. Up to £180,000 per year for the next two years will be provided to each of five areas: Stoke-on-Trent, Hartlepool, Bolton, and groups of authorities in West Yorkshire and East Lancashire.

  The money will help them to test how they can make best use of the full range of existing powers in their areas of special social need, and to gather good practice to support other local authorities with similar problems, pending the Housing Bill's proposed introduction of selective landlord licensing. The authorities in Gateshead and Salford will be working alongside this initiative.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is allocating funds from the £2 million for dissemination purposes, to ensure that lessons learned are spread to all authorities who wish to benefit.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Prize Competitions
  The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tessa Jowell)
  In May 2002 the Department issued a consultation letter concerning the law on prize competitions and lotteries. This followed the report of the independent Gambling Review, chaired by Sir Alan Budd, which the Department published in July 2001.

  The consultation document asked for replies by the end of August 2002. We received 70 responses, and have been considering them carefully.

  The Government are clear that lotteries will continue to be the preserve of good causes only. There should be no commercial, for-profit lotteries. The law should provide for a clear and enforceable distinction between lotteries and prize competitions, and the Government intend that the overall Bill on gambling which they propose should achieve that.

  The Bill will remove the restrictions on prize competitions in section 14 of the Lotteries and Amusements Act 1976. Under the Bill, prize competitions will be distinguishable from lotteries in that they either require a degree of skill, or that they have a clear and open free entry route. Competitions based on forecasting will be regulated as betting.

  Subject to any requirements arising from the European Regulation on Sales Promotions which is currently under discussion, the Bill will also provide for promotional prize draws.

  The Bill will act against so-called chain gifting schemes such as Women Empowering Women.

  We have made available a full statement of the conclusions which the Government have reached about these issues. We have sent this it to all respondents to our consultation exercise and deposited copies in the
  18WS
  Libraries of both Houses. The statement is also available on the Department's website on www.culture.gov.uk.

TRANSPORT

  Cycling Projects Fund
  The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Dr. Kim Howells)
  I have today announced grants totalling £2.285m to 155 bidders to the second round of the Department's Cycling Projects Fund. The fund was launched in 2002 as a two-year funding programme to support the growth of local provision for cycling.

  The response from schools, NHS providers, cycling groups and both the voluntary and private sector has been excellent. I have therefore decided, as in Round One, to double the amount of grant originally available as part on the Government's ongoing commitment to encouraging cycling.

  The fund was open to organisations, other than local traffic authorities, promoting any project that could be expected to achieve an increase in cycling. Typical examples included cycle parking, cycle routes, cycle training and workplace facilities for cyclists.

  The winning schemes come from all over the country and my Department's funding will allow projects to the value of over £5m to progress. The schemes cover a wide variety of projects including cycle parking, safe routes to school, local and National Cycle Network routes, cycle training and promotional projects aimed at raising the profile of cycling. I am confident these projects will be as successful as those we funded in Round One and will help us achieve a significant increase in cycling at the local level.

  My Department is encouraging local highway authorities to make funds available for similar projects.

  I have placed in the Libraries of the House a copy of the Department's Press Notice published today providing a full list of the winning projects.

CABINET OFFICE

  Draft Civil Contingencies Bill
  The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Douglas Alexander)
  I am today publishing a draft Civil Contingencies Bill (Cmd 5843) which, with the accompanying non-legislative measures, will deliver a single framework for civil protection in the United Kingdom.

  The Bill will codify existing best practice at the local level, ensuring consistency and enhancing performance and communication; it will deliver a new regional civil protection tier to enhance existing regional resilience; and it will modernise the legislative tools available to Government to deal with the most serious emergencies, providing greater flexibility, proportionality, deployability and robustness.
  19WS
  A Parliamentary Joint Committee formed from members of both Houses will undertake pre-legislative scrutiny of the proposals.

  Copies of the draft Civil Contingencies Bill, Explanatory Notes, the Regulatory Impact Assessment and the consultation document Draft Civil Contingencies Bill are available in the Libraries of both Houses and can also be viewed or the UK Resilience website (www.ukresilience.info). Interested parties are invited to submit their comments and views on the content of the draft Bill.

  I am also publishing an interim revision of Dealing with Disaster, which contains core guidance to emergency planners and local responders. This latest version takes account of changes in structures, practice and legislation, pending a further, comprehensive revision once the Civil Contingencies Bill is brought into force. This is also available in the Libraries of both Houses and can be viewed at www.ukresilience.info.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  Constitutional Reform
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie)
  The Government announced on 12 June a substantial package of constitutional reforms. That package includes the creation of a new Supreme Court to replace the existing Appellate Committee of the House of Lords and the establishment of a new Judicial Appointments Commission, on a statutory basis, to recommend candidates for appointment as judges.

  These are issues of profound constitutional importance, and the Government will consult widely on how best to take each forward. We intend to publish on 14 July a consultation paper on a Judicial Appointments
  20WS
  Commission and a new Supreme Court. The consultation period will run until November 2003, after which the Government will develop policy proposals, taking into account responses to consultation. At the conclusion of that process, legislation on these issues will be introduced at the earliest opportunity.

  Lord Irvine of Lairg announced to the Lord Chancellor's Department Select Committee his intention to consult on the future of the rank of Queen's Counsel. We therefore intend to publish a consultation paper on this issue, also on 14 July, with consultation closing in November. We will announce the Government's next steps early in 2004.

  A consultation paper on court working dress was published on 8 May, with responses sought by 14 August. The Government will be discussing the outcome of the consultation and how best to take the matter forward, with the senior judiciary.

TREASURY

  Financial System (Major Operational Disruption)
  The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Paul Boateng)
  I am announcing today our reply to the responses to the consultation document "The financial system and major operational disruption" (Cm 5751). I have asked Sir Andrew Large, Deputy Governor of the Bank of England (Financial Stability) to establish a Task Force to research and make recommendations on the issues arising from the consultation responses. The Task Force is charged to make final recommendations by the end of February 2004, with an interim report to be produced by early November 2003.

  Copies of the summary of responses to the consultation exercise and the terms of reference of the Task Force have been placed in the Library of the House.

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Blackburn.

Licensing Bill [H.L.]
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord McIntosh of Haringey): My Lords, I have it in command from His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales to acquaint the House that he, having been informed of the purport of the Licensing Bill, has consented to place his prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament, for the purposes of the Bill.
I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered. —(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Licensing Bill [H.L.]
  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  [The page and line references are to Bill 73 as first printed for the Commons.]

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  1 Clause 1, page 1, line 13, leave out "for consumption on the premises where the supply takes place"
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1. I speak also to Amendments Nos. 24 to 31, 33, 34, 85 and 86.
  I must begin by making it clear to the House that, although we are debating the principle of off-sales from clubs, noble Lords will note that Amendments Nos. 27, 29, 33, 34, 85 and 86 contain references to the mandatory conditions relating to the showing of films, the principle of which we will debate in a later group.
  On Report in this House, my noble friend Lord Evans of Parkside moved an amendment designed to remove the Bill's prohibition on the supply of alcohol by or on behalf of a club to or to the order of a member of the club for consumption off the premises. The Government resisted that amendment, but we agreed to meet my noble friend to discuss the issue further, and he graciously agreed to withdraw the amendment.
  Following our meeting and further consultation with the clubs movement, we moved these amendments in Committee in another place. The Bill now, therefore, allows clubs to make off-sales to their members, though not to their members' guests. Registered members' clubs under existing law, which will become qualifying clubs under the Bill, include political clubs—Labour, Liberal Democrat and
  904
  Conservative—working men's clubs, ex-services clubs and the Royal British Legion, clubs for certain professions and activities, miners' institutes and many sports clubs. Such clubs enjoy a different status to premises that operate under justices' licences and will, under the Bill, operate under premises licences, because they have a particular role to play as meeting-places in the community. The clubs are, however, limited in their activities. Alcohol can be supplied only to members and guests and not to the general public.
  Registered clubs are permitted by current law to supply alcohol to their members for consumption off the premises. It is likely that that was included for clarification purposes, as the provision by a club of its own alcohol to its members for their personal purposes outside the club would not be a licensable activity. The Bill, as originally drafted, made no provision for the supply of alcohol to members for consumption off the premises because it was decided that such supplies had little to do with clubs' traditional role as a meeting-place in the community. However, following further consultation with the Committee of Registered Clubs Association, we have taken the view that, as members of clubs already own the alcohol stock between them, it would be churlish to deny them the right to take alcohol home. Allowing them to do so poses no significant risk to the achievement of the licensing objectives.
  The House will note that Amendment No. 31 sets certain conditions relating to club premises certificates authorising off-sales from qualifying clubs. A club premises certificate may not authorise the supply of alcohol for consumption off the premises, unless it also authorises supply to members for consumption on those premises and that a club premises certificate authorising the supply of alcohol for consumption off the premises must include three conditions. The conditions are: first, the supply must be made at a time when the premises are open for the purpose of supplying alcohol, in accordance with the club premises certificate, to members of the club for consumption on the premises; secondly, any alcohol supplied for consumption off the premises must be in a sealed container; and, thirdly, any supply of alcohol for consumption off the premises must be made to a member of the club in person.
  I hope that the House will agree that, with those conditions in place, there is no good reason to prevent qualifying clubs supplying alcohol to their members for consumption off the premises.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
  Lord Evans of Parkside: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for accepting the spirit of the amendment that I moved on Report. I also thank Ministers for their courtesy in meeting me and representatives of the various club organisations. We are grateful for what my noble friend has done on behalf of all the club organisations in Great Britain.
  Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, we support the amendments, and we are grateful for them.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  2 Clause 3, page 2, line 41, at end insert "or"
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2. I speak also to Amendments Nos. 3, 4, 46, 47, 48 and 49. It is appropriate that I speak first, before the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, moves Amendment No. 2A.
  I assure those on the Benches opposite that their handiwork in pressing amendments on this topic prompted the Government and their key partners, including the industry, the local authorities and the police, to accelerate their work to honour the White Paper commitment to set up a national database for personal licences. Before I make progress, I shall clarify for the benefit of the House the difference between a national database and a central licensing authority, which is what was proposed in the amendments that were carried during the passage of the Bill through the House. The distinction is absolutely critical although it is somewhat technical.
  It is important to understand that a national database is not the same as setting up a whole new statutory body—the central licensing authority—which is the effect of the amendments made here. It refers to the development of an electronic system to allow the police, other responsible authorities and licensing authorities to exchange information easily and freely, and for licensees to apply online and facilitate the update of their details—for example, a change of address—thereby reducing bureaucracy. It is very firmly a database and not a new body corporate entrusted with statutory functions.
  Once we understand this important distinction, the argument in favour of a central licensing authority tends to evaporate. There are no advantages to be gained in having such an authority to administer personal licences over the scheme provided in the Bill as introduced to this House. All matters pertaining to an individual applicant or licence holder will be with one authority where records are maintained and required to be accessible. The simple fact is that no one—not the industry, nor the police, nor the local authorities—actually wants a central licensing authority or would benefit from one.
  It would add bureaucracy, cost and delay for no advantage. Who wants or needs another arm of government to carry out this relatively simple administrative process? The costs of setting up a new arm of government in this way—I understand that the sponsors of this amendment are talking about a body like the DVLA or the Security Industry Authority; I do not accuse them of wanting to set up another Criminal Records Bureau or Child Support Agency—will cost millions and take years to set up. In the mean time, the vast majority of the responsible public will be asking just why they are waiting.
  906
  Having said that, there is a great deal of merit in a national database. That is why the Bill provides the framework within which it can be developed. The Government are totally committed to working with partners to set up such a system. We have already met key stakeholders on a number of occasions with a view to producing an initial specification. We shall drive the work forward in parallel with the Bill to ensure that a system is available at the earliest opportunity. We have also facilitated meetings and seminars with the Office of the e-Envoy, and work on a business requirements document—the first step in the process—is well advanced. The business requirements document is being drafted in consultation with all key stakeholders.
  We are also taking forward a supporting project with the aim of ensuring that local authorities have the advice and support necessary to enable them to record information in a mutually consistent format. That will in turn facilitate the interchange of information when the central database is up and running.
  None of us should be under any misapprehension about the complexity or magnitude of the work involved when we consider that it would need to join up the licensing functions of around 410 authorities. There is still no extant example of a joined-up system of any significance which covers every local authority in England and Wales, although progress is being made across a number of fronts.
  Work has started on the central database. We are building on the experience of others in this sector—for example, the local government planning portal and the project to integrate local land and property gazetteers. It is true that the national database will not be up and running before the beginning of the transitional period. That is why we have identified a separate project on data standards that we shall be driving forward in the run up to the first appointed day. The aim of this project will be to ensure that all licensing authorities record the same information in the same way to facilitate migration of data to the new system when it has been put in place. In doing so, we shall be encouraging the full adoption of existing government interoperability and metadata standards.
  We have received wholehearted support for this approach. In the mean time, the Bill provides a simple, accessible system that can be up and running from Royal Assent. I am confident that the local system will work well up to the point where the national database can be up and running.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
  2A Lord Redesdale rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2, leave out "agree" and insert "disagree".
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I received information this morning regarding what appears to be a rather complicated system. I apologise if I get it wrong at any point. I should like to begin by welcoming the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, in his new role. So often in these debates we have talked about the multiple hatting of the noble Lord—depending on the

  907
  day of the week and the department that he is representing. It is most welcome news that he has now taken on this role. As I have not had a previous opportunity to do so, I should also like to say how much we valued the work of the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, in that role up until this time.
  The central licensing authority is an issue that has caused a degree of concern. The Minister has been extremely erudite in arguing his case and in arguing the case for a database. It was telling that he said that it was the work on this side of the House that has made the database a reality in the short term. That is very helpful. However, we have a number of concerns about the way in which the system is being set up. The amendment also reflects the concerns of the Local Government Association, with which I know the Minister has been working. However, it is perhaps on the back of those concerns—because, obviously, local authorities will run the system—that we shall be considering pressing this group of amendments.
  The arguments have been expressed at all stages of this Bill. Personal licences lasting up to 10 years will be granted on an individual basis and will have a degree of portability. That is why we hope to set up a system with a degree of conformity as regards everyone who applies for a licence. There could be a degree of difference from authority to authority, especially as the system has not been set up as yet, and is being set up over the medium term. Indeed, to a degree, it will not be in place when the Bill becomes law.
  One of our major concerns is cost. This is a deregulating Bill where we believe that the costs will be neutral. The Minister said that it will cost in the region of £10 million to set up a central database. That seems a very large amount of money, although it is a set-up cost and a one-off cost and could be funded from the fees charged for each of the licensees to run the system.
  The LGA wishes the system that we propose to be implemented. It may be an expensive system, and we should ask where the costs will fall if they do not fall on the central licensing system. It appears that the costs will fall on the local authorities. The Minister will say that those costs will already be borne to a degree by the local authorities, because people will have to register their interests with local authorities. However, disproportionate cost may fall on some local authorities if a brewery chain is based in one area and wants all its licensees to be registered with a particular authority that it feels that it can work with, for example.
  On that basis, and on the advice of the LGA, I beg to move.
  Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2, leave out "agree" and insert "disagree". —(Lord Redesdale.)
  Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I support the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale. I begin by expressing my appreciation for the time that the Secretary of State and the Minister have given to the noble Lord, Lord
  908
  Redesdale, and myself in their efforts to agree on as much as possible with regard to the Bill. Those opportunities have been greatly appreciated.
  However, we are disturbed by the response in another place to our amendment, which we achieved in this House with regard to the need for a central licensing authority. It was made clear in another place and again today by the Minister that the Government are honouring a commitment to set up a national database. However, it remains unclear what that actually means, and who will pay, implement and manage that system. It is clear that everyone involved is now deeply concerned about that.
  The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, made clear the reality, which is the huge cost exercise involved in setting up the system. Central government want to shift the licensing system on to local authorities from the magistrates, who, many continue to believe, were carrying out their duties perfectly adequately. Someone has to pay for that shift. Local authorities say that they will not be able to afford the necessary system, and industry is rightly worried that local authorities will look for ways in which to deflect costs on to it.
  We are deeply concerned about the importance of filtering applications for personal licences, to assist licensing authorities and the police in ensuring that only legitimate applicants apply for licences and renew their licences wherever they live in the country and no matter how many times they may have moved in a 10-year period in this very flexible and often transient industry.
  The Minister made it clear that setting up the database will cost millions of pounds, and that key stakeholders are already involved. I assume that "key stakeholders" means local authorities. There is clearly a lack of trust here, as local authorities are coming to us and saying, "Please press the Government for a central authority". They 1,A, ant something akin to the DVLA or the Security Industry Authority.
  We feel that the matter is sufficiently important to hope that the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, will press his amendment.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have heard what the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, and the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, have said about the amendment. I should say straightaway that I appreciate the concerns of local authorities. After all, all the functions have been performed by licensing justices in the past, and it is a very considerable shift for local authorities to be given the responsibility for licensing.
  However, that does not mean that one particular element—the organisation of personal licences—should be taken away from local authorities and given to a central licensing authority. All other aspects of the licensing regime set out in the Bill, including the registration, control and administration of premises licences, are to be the responsibility of local authorities. It seems strange that this one particular element is now being queried and that it is proposed to take it away from local authorities.

  909
  I understand the concerns of local authorities about entering into new territory and about money. The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, queried the cost of a database. I cannot give a precise figure for the cost of the database. A central licensing authority would have its own staff and would be a non-departmental public body or something of that kind—exactly what it would be is not spelt out in the amendments that were passed here. I can give an assurance that the cost of such an authority would be substantially more than the cost of a database.
  The supporters of the amendment are asking for an authority performing statutory functions. I can give an idea of the likely cost of such an authority, by analogy. The new Gambling Commission costs, which will be subject to parliamentary scrutiny over the next year, are expected to be from £10 million to £13 million pounds a year. The Security Industry Authority, which was mentioned when the proposals were made earlier this year in this House, incurred £6 million in set-up costs alone last year.
  The cost of a central licensing authority, as will the cost of a database, would eventually be passed on to the consumer. I must point out to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, that it is no answer to say that the cost of a central database can be recovered from a licensee, since licensees will put up their prices if their costs increase and the consumer will pay in the end. It really does not matter how the intermediate arrangements are made.
  I have already said, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, that there will be a consistency of format in the way in which the personal licence system is set up from the very beginning, so that it can be "migrated"—that is the technical term—to the central database in due course.
  The Government are not in the business of setting up new government organisations that are not necessary. We have a provision for a collaborative effort that will do the job perfectly effectively. We have no need to spend that extra money and involve ourselves in the extra bureaucracy. I hope that the House resists the amendment.
  Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his erudite reply. We have gone over the issue of costs on a number of occasions. I was somewhat concerned when the Minister said that the measures would lead to a rise in costs to the licensee and then to the consumer. That implies that the Bill, which is supposed to be cost-neutral, has some in-built problems that will have to be reassessed later.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I used the word "cost-neutral" because there are already substantial costs in the licensing regime through licensing justices. We are saying that a licensing regime through licensing authorities will be cheaper because less complex and bureaucratic than the licensing
  910
  justices system. However, within that cost will be additional costs that would have to be passed on for a central licensing authority.
  Lord Redesdale: My Lords, there has been a fundamental disagreement about how those costs will be met and how onerous they would be. We believe that the amendment would benefit licensees throughout the country and make the Bill work more cogently and coherently. Therefore, I beg leave to test the opinion of the House.
  The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, the original Question was that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2 since when an amendment has been moved to leave out "agree" and insert "disagree". The Question is that this amendment be agreed to.
  11.29 a.m.
  On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2A) shall be agreed to?
  *Their Lordships divided: Contents, 115; Not-Contents, 117.

  Division No. 1

  CONTENTS

  Aberdare, L.

  Henley, L.

  Ackner, L.

  Higgins, L.

  Addington, L.

  Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

  Ampthill, L.

  Howe of Aberavon, L.

  Anelay of St Johns, B.

  Hunt of Wirral, L.

  Astor, V.

  Inge, L.

  Astor of Hever, L.

  James of Holland Park, B.

  Avebury, L.

  Jellicoe, E.

  Beaumont of Whitley, L.

  Jenkin of Roding, L.

  Biffen, L.

  Jopling, L.

  Blatch, B.

  Kimball, L.

  Bradshaw, L.

  Laing of Dunphail, L.

  Brittan of Spennithorne, L.

  Livsey of Talgarth, L.

  Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

  Lucas, L.

  Buscombe, B.

  Luke, L.

  Campbell of Alloway, L.

  McColl of Dulwich, L.

  Carlile of Berriew, L.

  MacGregor of Pulham Market, L

  Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

  Carnegy of Lour, B.

  Maclennan of Rogart, L.

  Chalker of Wallasey, B.

  McNally, L.

  Cockfield, L.

  Maddock, B.

  Coe, L.

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Cope of Berkeley, L.

  Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

  Crathorne, L.

  Miller of Hendon, B.

  Crickhowell, L.

  Monro of Langholm, L.

  Denham, L.

  Mowbray and Stourton, L.

  Dholakia, L.

  Moynihan, L.

  Dixon-Smith, L.

  Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

  Dundee, E.

  Newby, L.

  Eccles of Moulton, B.

  Northesk, E.

  Elles, B.

  Northover, B.

  Falkland, V.

  O'Cathain, B.

  Fookes, B.

  Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

  Fowler, L.

  Park of Monmouth, B.

  Gardner of Parkes, B.

  Perry of Southwark, B.

  Geddes, L.

  Peyton of Yeovil, L.

  Glentoran, L.

  Phillips of Sudbury, L.

  Goodhart, L.

  Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

  Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.

  Razzall, L.

  Harris of Richmond, B.

  Rennard, L.

  911

  Roberts of Conwy, L.

  Swinfen, L.

  Roper, L. [Teller]

  Thomas of Gwydir, L.

  Saatchi, L.

  Thomas of Walliswood, B.

  Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

  Thomson of Monifieth, L.

  Seccombe, B.

  Tope, L.

  Selsdon, L.

  Trefgarne, L.

  Sharp of Guildford, B.

  Trumpington, B.

  Sharples, B.

  Ullswater, V.

  Shaw of Northstead, L.

  Vivian, L.

  Wakeham, L.

  Shrewsbury, E.

  Walmsley, B

  Shutt of Greetland, L. [Teller]

  Warnock, B.

  Skelmersdale, L.

  Wigoder, L.

  Smith of Clifton, L.

  Williams of Crosby, B.

  Stewartby, L.

  Williamson of Horton, L.

  Strange, B.

  Willoughby de Broke, L.

  Strathclyde, L.

  Windlesham, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Acton, L.

  Irvine of Lairg, L.

  Ahmed, L.

  Jones, L.

  Alli, L.

  Kilclooney, L.

  Andrews, B.

  King of West Bromwich, L.

  Archer of Sandwell, L.

  Kirkhill, L.

  Ashton of Upholland, B.

  Laming, L.

  Bach, L.

  Lea of Crondall, L.

  Bassam of Brighton, L.

  Lipsey, L.

  Berkeley, L.

  Lockwood, B.

  Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

  Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

  Billingham, B.

  McCarthy, L.

  Blackburn, Bp.

  Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

  Blackstone, B.

  McIntosh of Haringey, L.

  Borrie, L.

  McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

  Bragg, L.

  Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

  Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

  Mar, C.

  Brookman, L.

  Marsh, L.

  Campbell-Savours, L.

  Masham of Ilton, B.

  Carter, L.

  Mason of Barnsley, L.

  Christopher, L.

  Merlyn-Rees, L.

  Clark of Windermere, L.

  Milner of Leeds, L.

  Clarke of Hampstead, L.

  Morgan, L.

  Clinton-Davis, L.

  Morgan of Huyton, B.

  Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

  Morris of Aberavon, L.

  Crawley, B. [Teller]

  Morris of Manchester, L.

  David, B.

  Murray of Epping Forest, L.

  Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]

  Nicol, B.

  Desai, L.

  Orme, L.

  Dixon, L.

  Ouseley, L.

  Dubs, L.

  Patel of Blackburn, L.

  Elder, L.

  Peterborough, Bp.

  Evans of Parkside, L.

  Pitkeathley, B.

  Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

  Prys-Davies, L.

  Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

  Puttnam, L.

  Faulkner of Worcester, L.

  Radice, L.

  Gale, B.

  Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

  Gavron, L.

  Richard, L.

  Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

  Rooker, L.

  Gordon of Strathblane, L.

  Sainsbury of Turville, L.

  Goudie, B.

  Sandwich, E.

  Gould of Potternewton, B.

  Scotland of Asthal, B.

  Graham of Edmonton, L.

  Sewel, L.

  Grocott, L.

  Sheldon, L.

  Hardy of Wath, L.

  Simon, V.

  Harris of Haringey, L.

  Stone of Blackheath, L.

  Harrison, L.

  Strabolgi, L.

  Haskel, L.

  Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

  Hilton of Eggardon, B.

  Taylor of Blackburn, L.

  Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

  Temple-Morris, L.

  Hollis of Heigham, B.

  Thornton, B.

  Howarth of Breckland, B.

  Turner of Camden, B.

  Howe of Idlicote, B.

  Uddin, B.

  Hoyle, L.

  Walpole, L.

  Hughes of Woodside, L.

  Warner, L.

  Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

  Weatherill, L.

  Hylton, L.

  Whitaker, B.

  912

  Whitty, L.

  Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord President of the Council)

  Wilkins, B.

  Williams of Elvel, L.

  Woolmer of Leeds, L.

  [*See col. 922]
  Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  11.39 a.m.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  3 Page 3, line 1, leave out from "Scilly" to end of line 2
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
  [Amendment No. 3A not moved.]
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  4 Leave out Clause 4
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
  [Amendment No. 4A not moved.]
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  5 Clause 5, page 3, line 28, leave out from first "of" to "; and" in line 31 and insert "public nuisance"
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 5.
  The licensing objectives and their promotion must be capable of being translated into conditions that have to be complied with by licensees as well as representing the overarching criteria against which the licensing authority must discharge its functions in the public interest.
  Amendment No. 5 restored to the Bill the four licensing objectives that it originally contained. Those are the prevention of crime and disorder; public safety; the prevention of public nuisance; and the protection of children from harm. The House removed the prevention of public nuisance by an amendment in another place. Amendment No. 5 therefore reversed that decision and deleted the reference to public amenity, which this House had put in its place.
  We believe that replacing "public nuisance" with "amenity" significantly weakened the Bill, in particular in terms of the protection that it affords local residents in relation to the carrying on of

  913
  licensable activities. I recognise that that was clearly not the intention, but it was the effect. In our debates at that time, an impression was given that public nuisance was a narrow concept that would not cover some of the problems that might be caused to residents living near licensed premises. That was because the House was directed by contributors to the debate to the narrow definition of "nuisance" used in the Environmental Protection Act 1990. That definition is misleading in the context of the Bill.
  The Bill does not define "public nuisance". It retains the wider meaning that it has under common law; not that in the 1990 Act or in any other statutory definition. "Public nuisance" therefore retains the breadth and flexibility to take in all the concerns likely to arise from the operation of any premises conducting licensable activities in terms of the impact of nuisance on people living or doing business nearby.
  On the other hand, "public amenity" is a narrower term derived from planning law and refers to the aesthetic and visual qualities of an area. It would not cover the problems of noise and many aspects of anti-social behaviour that we acknowledge, to which the operation of some premises could give rise. Planning law already provides local planning authorities with the tools that they need to address public amenity concerns at any premises, not only at licensed premises. It would therefore be repetitious to include them in the Bill. It is essential that the prevention of public nuisance remains one of the key licensing objectives of the Bill.
  I can assure the House that in the guidance to be issued by the Secretary of State we shall make direct reference to public amenity issues that might properly give rise to conditions attached to licences under the objective of preventing public nuisance. I remind the House that we shall have an opportunity to fully debate the statutory guidance before it is issued. I hope that that will go some way towards persuading the House not to oppose the changes made when the Bill was in another place.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 5.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
  5A Baroness Buscombe rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 5, leave out "agree" and insert "disagree".
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we now return to an amendment that enjoyed much cross-party support when we moved it in your Lordships' House. The issue goes to the heart of the Bill. It concerns the impact of a licensed premises on everyone in the vicinity of those premises.
  When we debated the matter at length in your Lordships' House, we asked—and we now ask again—the Government to recognise the need for licensing authorities, when carrying out their functions under the Act, to consider both the quality of life for all those living and working in the vicinity of a licensed premises and the interests of local businesses, local enterprise and their customers' enjoyment of the premises' facilities.
  914
  A fair balance needs to be struck. The licensing objectives set out in the Bill as originally drafted fail to address that need. Although one of the four licensing objectives was the prevention of public nuisance, it was and remains our contention that simply referring to public nuisance fails to address that need. The term "public nuisance"—here I strongly disagree with the Minister—is open to broad interpretation, which would make it incredibly difficult for licensing authorities to be sure that they were promoting the licensing objectives in a fair and proportionate way.
  Noble Lords may remember that in Committee I took time to highlight the case law on the subject of public nuisance to show that the definition of "public nuisance" is open to different interpretations. What we now need is clarity for the benefit of licensing authorities when promoting the licensing objectives. Our amendment clarified the situation and was fair and in the interests of industry and local residents. I am amazed that Members in another place saw fit to overturn what made sense for all their constituents.
  Let me remind your Lordships of the wording that we used. When we refer to amenity. we mean the prevention of unreasonable diminution of the living and working amenity and environment of interested parties in the vicinity of the premises, balancing those matters against the benefits to be derived from the leisure amenity of such premises. We believe that this amendment is entirely proportionate, fair and sensible. We therefore ask the Government to reconsider the matter. It is a crucially important issue that can surely do no harm to the legislation. In the interests of enterprise and residents alike, it would do a great deal of good. I beg to move.
  Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 5, leave out "agree" and insert "disagree".—(Baroness Buscombe.)
  Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, I, too, am unhappy and not persuaded by what the Minister has said. Incidentally, I congratulate him on his most recent attainment.
  The truth of the matter is that guidance is no more than guidance. It has no statutory bite, and in any event it can be interpreted only within the ambit of the statute. If the statute, as proposed, refers only to public nuisance and not to the much wider and more balanced test to which the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, referred, which seeks to balance the amenity of local residents with entertainment and business factors, then it is not a matter of opinion but a matter of fact that the guidance can be construed only in accordance with that public nuisance objective.
  As has been said many times on Report, in Committee and again today, "public nuisance" is a very high hurdle indeed. A publican ambitious to extend his or her trade is encouraged by the existing draft guidance to apply for and obtain a 24-hour licence; there is a strong predisposition in the guidance to 24-hour licences. It would therefore be idle to

  915
  pretend that normal behaviour at abnormal hours, such as the regular coming and going to a village pub at three, four or five o'clock in the morning, would not create a great despoliation of individual amenity—noise, light, traffic.
  It is also idle to pretend that the conduct of a single person going lawfully and peaceably to a village pub at four o'clock in the morning, getting out of his or her car, slamming the door, turning off the engine, going into the pub, coming out sober, getting back into the car, starting the engine, slamming the door and moving off, could constitute a nuisance. It would not come remotely within the definition of nuisance. The Government should not therefore pretend that "public nuisance", the third of the four objectives, would be of any use at all to counter that amenity loss.
  In conclusion, leaving the statute as it is—regardless, frankly, of what is put in the guidance—is to disenfranchise local people even from being able to make objection to the grant of a licence. One can make objection only on the grounds that one of the four general objectives is likely to be breached. If one cannot therefore establish public nuisance—and one will not be able to—one cannot even go before the licensing authority and say one's piece. That is a most extraordinary state of affairs in a so-called free country. Although there are other aspects to the Bill, the centrality of its key objectives will disallow ordinary residents from having any remedy at all. I therefore remain deeply unhappy about the position; I believe that I also speak for my colleagues.
  The Lord Bishop of Peterborough: My Lords, from these Benches I express my sympathy with the amendment. Every bishop in the land who lives in a town or city centre is aware of how the quality of life there has decreased. The clergy are often among the few residents who are still living in town and city centres. The increase in licensing hours and entertainment provision, and the opening of public houses, make it difficult to maintain quality of life in those places. I personally have had to move a clergyman who with his family found it impossible to continue to live where they were simply because the licensing authorities did not make allowance for his and his family's amenity in living near a city-centre pub in extending the provisions. From these Benches, I have considerable support for the amendment.
  Lord Hylton: My Lords, will the Minister say whether loud music from pubs in the early hours of the morning will be adequately covered by the expression "public nuisance"? Or should we rely on the expression "living amenity"? The noble Lord the Minister said that "amenity" was imported from town planning legislation, but is it substantially modified by adding the word "living", which I imagine would include residents sleeping in close proximity to noisy pubs?
  Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, I agree with everything that has been said so far by my noble friend Lady Buscombe and others on this amendment. To try and narrow it down to the action that someone
  916
  might take is insufficient. The occasional opening and closing of a door at four o'clock in the morning would not probably constitute a public nuisance, nor would the continuous revving up of motorcycles, because if local residents were to report that to a noise officer, he would say, "This is an intermittent noise. There is nothing I can do about it, because if I put my machinery in, it will not be consistent. Therefore, I have no powers to act and I can make no recommendations". It is important that the Minister takes account of that point as well.
  Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I strongly support my noble friend on the Front Bench and the noble Lord, Lord Phillips. The Government seem to be taking a rather cavalier attitude to all the offences covered by the simple phrase "public nuisance". People always assume that they understand the public, but many do so wrongly. There is an unusual volume of evidence showing that the public simply do not understand that cavalier attitude to the offence of public nuisance. I understand the difficulties of enforcing it, but I hope that the Government will understand that and that they will not think that "guidance" is a simple alternative to forbidding an offensive practice. The world is littered with guidance. The roads are paved with guidance and people walk all over them. I hope that the Government will have second thoughts.
  Lord Avebury: My Lords, along with my noble friends, I congratulate the Minister. I also appreciate everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, has done and the assiduity with which she attends to questions put to her in writing—offline, as it were—which have a bearing on the matters that we are discussing on the Floor of the House.
  I ask the Minister to respond to one of those matters; that is, the assurances that were given on the final day on Report, on 4th March, by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone. She said,
  "I recognise the genuine concern that because of the exploitation of the current A3 use class, 'superpubs' have been allowed to spring up by the back door".—[Official Report, 4/3/03; col. 779.]
  She went on to describe the statement in another place by the Minister, Mr Tony McNulty, about the changes to the use classes order which would put pubs and bars into a separate class.
  As the superpub is the source of a great deal of the public nuisance with which we are concerned in this amendment, will the Minister tell us what has happened in the three months since that assurance was given in this House? I am extremely concerned that if that change does not come into effect until after the Bill has reached the statute book, there will an incentive for the owners of premises to rush through changes while the loophole still exists. They will be able to do that, because they will be free of the restraints on opening hours and undertakings that are provided in the existing licensing regime. Will the Minister explain how that matter will be addressed under the licensing objectives that he proposes, and

  917
  what interim arrangements will be put in place to prevent users taking advantage of the loophole that will exist between the date on which the Bill comes into force and that on which the A3 use class is split into two categories?
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not know whether it is fully appreciated, but the provision for public nuisance as opposed to public amenity is being criticised from two completely opposite sides. On the one side, the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, criticised the broadness of the definition of public nuisance. I have already made it clear in introducing the amendment that we are using the common law definition of public nuisance. The noble Baroness thought that a broad definition was not a good idea. I suggest that the broadness of the definition is actually helpful, because it enables licensing authorities to respond to individual circumstances. If we were to narrow it to amenity—and I repeat how narrow is "amenity" for the purpose of protecting the public—we would be losing something very significant.
  From the opposite direction, the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, described public nuisance as a very high hurdle. In the flexible way in which it can be interpreted for the purposes of the Bill—in other words, in the common law sense rather than in the sense of the 1990 Act, which he did not refer to again, but which was the basis of his argument when the Bill was in this House— "public nuisance" provides all the protection that noble Lords could wish for.
  The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, asked me about loud music in the early hours of the morning. That certainly is public nuisance. As the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, pointed out, car doors slamming and people coming and going is of course a public nuisance. It does not involve public amenity. Public amenity is a narrower term that is derived from planning law.
  Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, I accept the Minister's comments about the question of continuous loud noise. That would undoubtedly qualify as "public nuisance" that would be taken into account. Surely the matters that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, mentioned do not amount to public nuisance, but they still affect the lives of those people living in the area. So, at the one stage it is a broad definition of public nuisance, but I cannot see that people going about their normal, legitimate lives, going to a public house at 2 or 3 a.m., inevitably causing noise while doing so, can be said to be causing a public nuisance. Whereas, the interests of those people living in the area may very much need to be taken into account in deciding whether it is appropriate to have a licence in that area at all.
  Noon
  Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am also grateful to the Minister for giving way, and for the intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle. Is the Minister seriously telling the House, and if so is it on the authority of those who advise him on legal matters, that a person—or indeed many people—coming and
  918
  going to a village pub at 3 a.m. in a perfectly normal way will in respect of any of them constitute a private or public nuisance? I can assure him, not merely from long practice as a lawyer who has dealt with these matters, but as someone who has looked at eight of the standard textbooks, that that use, that behaviour, does not remotely constitute on the part of any of those individuals a public or a private nuisance.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there are two answers to that point. I thought I had made both of them in my original speech. The first—which the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, does not give any credit to, and I understand his position, when he says that guidance is not strong enough to protect the public in this case—is that we are talking about statutory guidance that has the authority of Parliament and has to be approved by Parliament. I have given the undertaking that the statutory guidance which will follow the passage of the Bill will cover the points made in the original amendment in this House. The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, read out the wording of Clause 5(2)(c). I cannot give her an absolute guarantee that that precise wording will be introduced into the statutory guidance, because the wording is always a matter—the noble Baroness is a lawyer and I am not—for parliamentary counsel, and departmental lawyers will undoubtedly wish to pick that wording to pieces. However, I can give her the absolute assurance that the wording that will appear in the statutory guidance will reflect the spirit of the amendment that was carried in this House.
  Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, on that point, can the Minister tell the House how Mr and Mrs Bloggs, living in a house and suffering from intimate noise—either by cars or loud music—from time to time are going to find a lawyer, legal aid or a means of pursuing their case? Someone will say that this is new legislation, that the statutory guidance is not very clear and that they cannot therefore recommend legal aid or whatever. Has the Minister taken into account that factor—the way that the individual will be faced with the problem and an undermined amenity as a result?
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, these are intractable matters and are much wider than the issues presented by the Bill. There are difficulties. What does one do about a district nurse, for example, who returns from a night call and who has to slam her car door? These are not matters for licensing legislation. If there are faults with the wider legislation, then let us address those issues. However,—
  Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords,—
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am not even allowed to finish a sentence in this House.
  Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the Minister's sentence and again I am grateful to him for giving way. He really is, if I may say

  919
  so, in danger of misleading the House when he correlates a district nurse making a visit at 3 a.m. with the predictable and invited attendance of members of the public to a pub at 3, 4 and 5 a.m. It is not being fair to the House to present that as any sort of parallel. I repeat my question. I indicated earlier that as a matter of law the Government were arguing that a person arriving at a pub at 3 a.m.—normal behaviour, normal use of car—and coming out again is a public nuisance, although there is no anti-social behaviour, nothing that one could complain about, except the fact that it is 3 a.m. and that starting and stopping motor cars and opening and closing their doors causes a great deal of noise and light. Is the Minister seriously telling the House that that could conceivably constitute private nuisance, let alone public nuisance?
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I did not say that. I am saying that the provisions of the Bill, as we provide for it, with the combination of "public nuisance"—for the kind of examples that the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, gave—and the statutory guidance, which will cover the issues raised in the House of Lords amendment, cover the point, not only adequately, hut very significantly better than changing the words "public nuisance" to "public amenity". "Public amenity" is a narrower concept.
  Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords,—
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have to be allowed to pursue my argument. "Public amenity" derives from planning law and relates to the aesthetic and visual qualities of the area. It does not cover the problems of noise and aspects of anti-social behaviour that we agree can happen from licensing legislation. By the way, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, that there is no question of legal aid. These are matters for representations to the licensing authority. I give way again.
  Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I am most grateful. The Minister is again, I am sorry to say, not using the language of the amendment that is sought to be overthrown. It does not talk about "public amenity", which I agree is a planning term. It talks about "living and working amenity". That is quite different and wholly unrelated to planning law concepts. The Minister claimed earlier that there was a remedy in respect of people who were ordinarily arriving and departing from pubs at 3, 4 or 5 a.m. I ask him again: is it the Government's position that there is a remedy under "public nuisance" for such a normal use of a car park, of a pub at 3 a.m.?
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I did not say that it was "public nuisance". Legitimate activities pursued at illegitimate times are matters for licensing authorities. They will be concerned with them because they will be covered in statutory guidance. I do not even know what the words "living amenity" mean. The regime that we propose in the Bill, a combination of a broad public nuisance criterion—which applies
  920
  throughout the Bill—together with explicit statutory guidance covering the points raised by noble Lords when they passed the amendment in the House, is a better regime than importing from planning law a much more limited and ill-defined concept, which is the aim of the noble Lord, Lord Phillips.
  Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, I promise that this will he my last intervention, but it is important. The Minister is again inadvertently misleading the House. The issue is not one of planning law at all. When the Minister says that the licensing authorities will be able to have regard to the guidance, the fact is that if "public nuisance" is the only objective dealing with amenity, local residents will not be able to make their case to the licensing authority. That is the point, because they will not be pursuing one of the four objectives in the Bill. If we claim—and I am certain that we are right—that there is no public nuisance in the normal use of a local village pub at 3, 4 or 5 a.m., then one is not even within the realms of being able to make representations. That is the point. Finally, regarding the Minister's concentration on guidance, Clause 5(3) says that the licensing authority only has to have "regard" to guidance. The Minister has not answered the point that if "public nuisance" is restored to the Bill, the guidance will not be able to reintroduce the words of our amendment that is being thrown out. The guidance must be within the context and contours of the Bill. We cannot have guidance that extends the scope of the Bill.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I wish that the noble Lord would set out his arguments in his first speech instead of letting them out in dribs and drabs in this way. He has not raised the issue of what can be complained about before, which is a different point. I shall try to recapitulate on the various points that he made and to emphasise how much they are at variance with the views of the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, who actually tabled the amendment. She is saying something quite different.
  I have agreed that intermittent ordinary behaviour is not public nuisance and that it has to be covered by statutory guidance. However, the combination of many people in the vicinity of premises and the noise generated would change the nature of ordinary behaviour so that it could become—I cannot say in any specific circumstances—a matter of public nuisance to those in the vicinity of the premises. That is a question of fact that has to be determined on individual cases. It cannot be done entirely by law.
  Can appeals be made to the licensing authority? Of course the licensing authority, having followed the statutory guidance, is under an obligation to see that the conditions that it applies are adhered to. Therefore, there is a reference to the licensing authority. I was asked about the views of the industry. A recent article in The Publican Newspaper was concerned that the Government had overturned the public amenity test because they viewed it as a less onerous criterion—less onerous not for the people in

  921
  the vicinity, but for the licensees. Are we on the side of the people in the vicinity or on the side of the licensees when there is a conflict?
  The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, very reasonably and understandably, wants us to reflect the spirit of the amendment that was agreed to, and that is what we shall do. On the other hand, the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, is pursuing a point of view directly opposite to what she is saying. His view is actually confirmed by the industry as favouring licensees rather than the public.
  We fundamentally disagree with the limitation of the powers of the licensing authority that would be reintroduced by the amendment overturning the Commons amendment. We now have a combination of effective statutory guidance and a strong but not particularly high hurdle of public nuisance under the common law that will meet the requirements of the licensing authorities, the licensed trade and, above all, local people. I ask the House to resist Amendment No. 5A.
  Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the Minister not going to deal with my argument?
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg the noble Lord's pardon. Of course, his question about the A3 use class is nothing to do with the amendment, but the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has confirmed that pubs will be placed in a separate use class so that planning permission will be required to convert to a superpub. The Bill will not have any effect on that until at least 2005.
  12.15 p.m.
  Baroness Buscombe: I thank the Minister for his response. I also want to thank the noble Lords, Lord Phillips of Sudbury and Lord Hylton, my noble friends Lady Oppenheim-Barnes and Lord Peyton of Yeovil, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Peterborough for their invaluable contributions to this important and worthwhile debate. The Minister clearly feels that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury, and I are coming from different quarters. I actually said that "public nuisance" is open to differing interpretations, as our debate makes absolutely clear. What we need now is clarity.
  To some extent, I am assured. I would have much preferred to see our amendment remain in the Bill rather than go into statutory guidance. I hear and accept much of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Phillips of Sudbury. However, I want to trust the Minister—if I may put it that way—on the basis that the words for which we ask will appear in the statutory guidance, at least in terms of the spirit of what we are really looking for, which is a fair and proportionate balance between the lives of people who live in the vicinity of the premises and enterprise and local business.
  The many examples raised today are helpful in terms of what we are trying to achieve. I hope that the Government have very much taken on board the
  922
  concerns that clearly continue to exist in the House and beyond. I am grateful to the Minister for agreeing to ensure sufficient wording to meet our needs in the statutory guidance and for saying that "public nuisance" will include the definition of, we hope, something akin to "living and working amenity". On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment No. 5A, as an amendment to the Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale): My Lords, I have to announce that there was an inaccuracy in the figures given for the previous Division, although the result remains the same. There voted "Contents", 113*, "Not-Contents", 117, so the "Not-Contents" still have it.
  [*The Tellers for the Contents reported 113 votes. The Clerks recorded 112 names.]

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  6 Clause 9, page 5, line 41, leave out paragraph (d)
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 6. I must open debate on the amendment by indicating clearly that the Government do not intend to oppose the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, that the House does not agree with the Commons in its Amendments Nos. 6, 15, 16, 20 and 21.
  In Committee in another place, we overturned amendments made in this House adding references on registered interests, restoring the Bill to its original position. The amendments altered the balance of control over a premises licence too far away from the licence holder and too far towards the interests in question. Since then, however, we have had extensive consultation with the industry, and I believe that we have reached an accommodation. I undertake that the Government will give effect to that accommodation when the Bill returns to another place.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 6.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
  6A Lord Redesdale rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 6, leave out "agree" and insert "disagree".
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, on that very generous assurance given by the Minister, I beg to move.
  Moved, That,as an amendment to the Motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 6, leave out "agree" and insert "disagree".—(Lord Redesdale.)
  Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for taking the time to discuss with the industry what we believe to be an entirely sensible position in relation to registered interests. I gave early warning to his officials that I would like to use the opportunity, with the leave of the House—I do so because we are talking about

  923
  those involved perhaps as owners of premises and licensed premises—to ask him to confirm, with regard to provisional statements, that it will be open to any operator who is able to submit an operating schedule in accordance with the Bill to apply for a premises licence, even where a premises is under construction or yet to be built.
  Lord Williamson of Horton: My Lords, the point made by the noble Baroness is important. There should be proper planning and use of resources in a way that is reasonable for the construction of new premises. I would like to have that assurance also.
  Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, I rise to support my noble friend. I declare an interest of which the Minister is aware; I am a director of a regional brewery that operates 1,500 public houses. It is to give some certainty. The phraseology used on Report in another place was not clear. I wrote to the Minister about the issue. I hope that he can reassure us on that point. It will also be important for his officials to review paragraphs 6.50 and 6.51 of the draft guidance issued on the 13th February, because it does not fit in with the agreement that he has reached with my noble friend. His officials might also review paragraph 82 of the Explanatory Notes to the Bill.
  We would be comforted by that assurance and by the further assurance that the guidance notes and Explanatory Notes will be revised to reflect what I hope he will say.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am happy to give the assurance asked for. If a building is under construction or has not been started, provided that the plans are clear enough to justify an application for an operating licence, if a licensing authority is satisfied—as it would have been if the building had been completed—an operating licence can be granted. There is therefore no risk of double jeopardy.
  Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that assurance.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  On Question, Motion, as amended, agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  7 Clause 14, page 9, line 1, leave out paragraph (e)
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 7.
  Under Part 3 of the Bill, interested parties—local residents and businesses and their representatives—may make representations about applications for premises licences and may also apply to the relevant licensing authority for reviews of premises licences. The amendments in another place removed the extension of the ability to make representations on their behalf, inserted in this House, to MPs, MEPs and local ward councillors in relation to any premises within their constituency or ward.
  924
  The Government believe firmly that local residents and businesses should be given the opportunity to have their say about the licensing of premises in their vicinity. That is why these groups are included in the list of interested parties. Of course, any local business or local resident living in the vicinity of the premises may use any representative to put their case. This could be a solicitor, a friend, a relative, a Member of Parliament, a ward councillor, an MEP—although that is slightly unlikely—or a Member of the National Assembly for Wales, or a body representing the amenity interests in the area.
  However, there is no reason why any of these individuals should have a say in their own right when local residents do not wish to put representations forward on the application. If no local residents or businesses in the vicinity wish to exercise their right to make representations or apply for a review, possibly because residents are pleased to see a new licensed premises opening nearby, whom would the ward councillor, for example, be representing?
  The inclusion in the Bill of councillors, MPs and European representatives is not appropriate. These representatives are available if a local resident should wish to use their services, but views should not be expressed on a resident's behalf when she or he has not asked for them to be made. The rights we are giving to make representations are to protect those directly affected by activities to be carried on at the premises concerned. It is not for others to tell residents that they know better. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 7.—(Lord McIntosh of' Haringey.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  8 Page 9, line 14, leave out "for the area in which the premises are situated" and insert "by which statutory functions are exercisable in any area in which the premises are situated in relation to minimising or preventing the risk of pollution of the environment or of harm to human health"
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 8. I shall speak also to Amendment No. 10.
  Within the definitions of responsible authorities in the Bill, Amendments Nos. 8 and 10 restored the position prior to amendments accepted in this House. When the Bill left this House for consideration in another place, the responsible authorities it described were several. They included the police; the fire authority; the enforcing authority for health arid safety law; the local authority for the area in which the premises are situated; any licensing authority in whose area part of the premises are situated, including the one considering the application; various bodies concerned with applications involving vessels; and other persons prescribed by the Secretary of State.
  A responsible authority is essentially an expert body to be notified when an application is made, which can make representations about the licensing objectives.

  925
  For example, the police will consider carefully the applicant's proposals for preventing crime and disorder on his premises. If they are adequate, the police will not need to intervene; if the police are dissatisfied with the proposals, they have the right to make representations to the licensing authority.
  When this House amended the Bill, it removed the description in the original text of environmental health officers. It is vital that they be consulted, because they have technical expertise in areas such as noise nuisance. They need to scrutinise the steps an applicant intends to take to prevent nuisance.
  Amendment No. 8 restored them to the list. The amendments in this House also replaced environmental health officers with a description of,
  "the local authority in which the premises are situated".
  The local authority is the licensing authority. The effect was to allow the licensing authority to make representations to itself.
  It may be helpful if I remind the House that amendments were moved in another place by the Official Opposition that would have removed the local authority as a responsible authority, but would not have restored the important status of the environmental health authority, which was the added effect of the government amendments. The government amendments were therefore preferred. In the House of Commons, both sides of the House were in relative harmony on this matter.
  While the Bill was being considered here, a further amendment by this House also duplicated part of the changes by including in the list of responsible authorities all licensing authorities in whose area part of the premises are situated. The list originally included only those licensing authorities—other than the one in receipt of the application—in whose areas part of the premises are situated; namely, where premises straddle local authority boundaries. Amendment No. 10 restored this arrangement.
  The amendments raise two important issues for the Bill. The first is fairness. The local authority is given the functions of a licensing authority. If it can make representations to itself and by that means generate a hearing to consider those representations, the licensing authority through its licensing committee would be prosecution, witness, jury, judge and executioner in the same court. That cannot be proper, and it would trigger a number of human rights issues. Let us not be technical about it; it simply would not be right or fair. I hope that the House will agree.
  We are not hamstringing the licensing authority; where local authorities have particular statutory responsibility for expert matters that directly impact on the licensing objectives, they are responsible authorities. The environmental health authority is the local authority. The enforcing agency for health and safety is normally the local authority. The planning authority is the local authority. These are all responsible authorities for the purposes of the Bill. In
  926
  these expert capacities, the local authority can already make representations, and can be heard fairly and properly by the licensing committee.
  The second important issue is deregulation. One way in which we are deregulating in this case is by reducing significantly the number of routine hearings to which licensing currently gives rise. Almost everything in the six existing licensing regimes generates regular and routine hearings. The aim of the Bill is to ensure that only matters of proper and relevant dispute give rise to hearings.
  Under the Bill, a hearing will be necessary only if one of the expert and professional bodies, or a local resident, residents' association or local business is dissatisfied with the proposals in the operating schedule. If everyone is content, the application will be granted and the operating schedule will come into force. But if a licensing authority can generate hearings whether or not the expert bodies and local residents are content, we have opened the door back to the old bureaucracy and red tape, which could in some areas—I do not say all areas—reduce the deregulation effects of the Bill. So, we are focusing here on problem premises. We are targeting resources there and on an effective operating schedule.
  For those reasons—fairness and the desire to reduce red tape—I hope that the House will welcome the changes made to the Bill in another place.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 8. —(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.
  12.30 p.m.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  9 Page 9, line 14, at end insert—
  "( ) a body which—

  (i) represents those who, in relation to any such area, are responsible for, or interested in, matters relating to the protection of children from harm, and

  (ii) is recognised by the licensing authority for that area for the purposes of this section as being competent to advise it on such matters."

  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 9. I shall speak also to Commons Amendments Nos. 23, 50 and 52. Indeed, I shall speak in favour of Amendment No. 50A to my own Amendment No. 50.
  The protection of children from harm is one of the four licensing objectives of the Bill. No one here would want to deny children access to the village shop, which also happens to be the off-licence. No one here would want to deny children access to a supermarket, Pizza Hut, the cinema or the theatre, even though all are licensed premises.
  None of us would want to see children in lap dancing clubs, gaming clubs or seedy bars that are associated with drug dealing or under-age drinking. But between those two there are many shades of grey, where, in given circumstances, we would anticipate that children

  927
  should be given access to licensed premises. We moved two amendments in another place to remove Clauses 143 and 151 on the grounds that they were undesirably restrictive. A number of children's representatives with whom the Secretary of State consulted agreed with that position.
  Among other things, Clause 143 raised a raft of issues over the definition of licensed premises in subsection (2), and Clause 151 raises issues of practicality. It would effectively require under-14s to be accompanied in supermarkets and corner shops. I hope that the House can agree to the removal of these clauses on that basis.
  Having said that, we have listened carefully to the many powerful arguments put to us over the past few months. In its place, I shall later move Amendment No. 50A, which proposes that the House agrees with the Commons in their amendments and agrees to a further amendment in lieu to the Bill to the effect that it will be an offence to admit children under 16 to certain categories of premises where they are not accompanied by an adult. Those premises are as follows: those exclusively or primarily used for the supply of alcohol for consumption on the premises; and those open for the purposes of being used for the supply of alcohol for consumption on the premises by virtue of Part 5—permitted temporary activities—which, at the time the temporary event notice has effect, are exclusively or primarily used for such supplies.
  So, a garden fete, for example, which has a temporary event notice, is not being used exclusively for that supply, and, therefore, unaccompanied children can properly be allowed in. It will also be an offence to allow an unaccompanied child to be on relevant premises at a time between the hours of midnight and 5 a.m. when the premises are open for the purposes of being used for the supply of alcohol for consumption there. The scheme is designed to put in place a statutory barrier to the unaccompanied access of children essentially to pubs and night-clubs, but to allow access to restaurants, cafés, cinemas and theatres.
  The Secretary of State and I have been keen throughout the development of the Bill to take into account the views of organisations with an interest in the protection of children from harm and to consider how they can be reflected in legislation. We have consulted a range of bodies including the NSPCC, the Children's Society, the Methodist Church, the Salvation Army, Turning Point, Alcohol Concern, the Association of Directors of Social Services and the Association of Chief Police Officers. We have developed a balanced package, which will ensure access, where appropriate, to children in a family-friendly environment, while providing them with protection.
  The protection of children from harm is a key licensing objective, and we need to ensure that licensing decisions have expert input on that objective. Amendments made in another place added the local
  928
  area child protection committees, or their successor bodies, to the list of responsible authorities that can make representations on licensing applications, new or variations, and raise issues of concern relating to any of the licensing objectives through the review provisions.
  I have already indicated what is on the face of the Bill. In statutory guidance we will cover factors which indicate a licensed premises' suitability for access by children, from those where it is felt that the risks to children, whether supervised or unsupervised, are too great; for example, premises where there is the possibility of children being exposed to drug taking or dealing, gambling, adult or sexual entertainment or illegal selling of alcohol to minors, through to premises to which unsupervised children under 16 should be permitted access. We will also emphasise that where any access for children is permitted, the licensee will still have to demonstrate clearly the steps that it is proposed to take to promote the protection of children from harm in the operating schedule. My officials will continue to work with the child protection organisations and take their views into account in preparing the final version of the guidance.
  I believe that this balanced package offers the best way forward on this issue.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 9. —(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
  Lord Williamson of Horton: My Lords, when I intervened earlier I should have declared an interest as a non-executive director of Whitbread. However, I have done it so many times in the course of the Bill that it is probably well known.
  On this particular point I intervene to thank the Minister for Amendment No. 50A and for the other point that he raised, which was one that I raised earlier. I believe that we now have provisions that give adequate protection for unaccompanied children. That is a real improvement in the Bill. The Government have responded satisfactorily to our concerns.
  Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, it will not surprise noble Lords to hear me say how enormously grateful I am to the Minister for the amendments. I believe that the amendments are here today because of the pressure that was put on the Government by noble Lords when this matter was debated at length in your Lordships' House. I pay particular tribute to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of London, and others, who supported me through the discussions on those amendments.
  This is a tremendously important subject. We are grateful that the Government, as a result of pressure from your Lordships, have now consulted widely and will continue to consult on the matter. Perhaps our amendments were unduly restrictive, but the Government took on board the spirit of what we were trying to achieve. I am grateful to them for that. The Bill as originally drafted did not protect the interests of

  929
  children. I believe that now, with these amendments, the Bill will protect the interests of children and help parents to cope. I am grateful to the Minister.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  10 Page 9, line 15, leave out ", including the relevant licensing authority," and insert "(other than the relevant licensing authority)"
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 10.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 10. —(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  11 Clause 17, page 10, line 15, leave out paragraph (h)
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 11. I shall speak also to Commons Amendment No. 56.
  On Report in another place, the Government tabled an amendment that was accepted, the effect of which was to add to Clause 172 premises which, at the time the activity that would otherwise be a licensable activity is carried out, are permanently or temporarily occupied for the purposes of the Armed Forces of the Crown to the list of locations at which activities would not be licensable. Therefore, the amendment has the effect of exempting messes, canteens and other service facilities from the Bill's provisions.
  I can go into more detail if necessary, but I do not think that the amendment is controversial.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 11.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  12 Clause 19, page 12, line 11 , after "20" insert ", (Mandatory condition in licences: exhibition of films)"
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 12. I shall speak also to Commons Amendments Nos.13, 14, 17, 22, 32, 55, 82 and 83. Those amendments are about the admission of children to film exhibitions. Amendments Nos. 27, 29, 33, 34, 85 and 86, which were debated in the context of off sales from qualifying clubs are, in part, consequential on the principle of the amendments relating to this group.
  The protection of children from harm is one of the central objectives of the Bill. To reinforce our commitment to protecting children from harm and to emphasise that under the Bill children would not be free to see age-restricted films classified by the British Board of Film Classification or by licensing
  930
  authorities themselves, the Government tabled amendments at Report stage, which were accepted, providing that a mandatory condition should be imposed by licensing authorities on premises licences and club premises certificates authorising the exhibition of films to the effect that the premises must comply with age restriction classifications given to films either by a body designated under Section 4 of the Video Recordings Act 1984—at present that is the British Board of Film Classification—or by the licensing authority itself, which would preserve the rarely exercised current power of local authorities to classify films themselves, including in relation to individual films.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 12.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  13 Page 12, line 25, after "20" insert ", (Mandatory condition in licences: exhibition of films)"
  14 After Clause 20, insert the following new clause—
  "Mandatory condition in licences: exhibition of films

  (1) Where a premises licence authorises the exhibition of films, the licence must include a condition requiring the admission of children to the exhibition of any film to be restricted in accordance with this section.

  (2) Where the film classification body is specified in the licence, unless subsection (3)(b) applies, admission of children must be restricted in accordance with any recommendation made by that body.

  (3) Where—

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

  (b) the relevant licensing authority has notified the holder of the licence that this subsection applies to the film in question,admission of children must be restricted in accordance with any recommendation made by that licensing authority.

  (4) In this section—

  "children" means persons aged under 18; and
  "film classification body" means the person or persons designated as the authority under section 4 of the Video Recordings Act 1984 (c. 39) (authority to determine suitability of video works for classification)."
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 13 and 14.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 13 and 14.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  15 Clause 28, page 16, line 17, leave out from "he" to end of line 21 and insert "may give the relevant licensing authority a notice to that effect"
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 15.

  931
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 15. —(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
  15A Lord Redesdale rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 15, leave out "agree" and insert "disagree".
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
  Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 15. leave out "agree" and insert "disagree".—(Lord Redesdale.)
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  On Question, Motion, as amended, agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  16 Clause 33, page 19, line 22, leave out subsections (6) and (7)
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 16.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 16.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
  16A Lord Redesdale rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 16, leave out "agree" and insert "disagree".
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
  Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 16, leave out "agree" and insert "disagree"—(Lord Redesdale.)
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  On Question, Motion, as amended agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  17 Clause 35, page 20, line 43, after "20" insert ", (Mandatory, condition in licences: exhibition of films)"
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 17.
  Moved, that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 17.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  18 Clause 37, page 21, line 40, leave out "which authorises the supply of alcohol may" and insert "may—

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

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

  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 18 and speak also to Amendments Nos. 19, 51, 53, 54, 68 to 81 and 84. This is a group of minor technical amendments made at Report stage in another place. Government Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 are minor amendments perfecting the drafting of the Bill in relation to
  932
  applications to vary the individual specified in a premises licence as the designated premises supervisor. It is only for premises licences authorising the supply of alcohol that a designated premises supervisor is required, because of the particular issues that arise from the supply and consumption of alcohol, and the responsibilities which go with that. The centrality of the concept of the designated premises supervisor has been discussed at great length in both Houses.
  Clause 37 provides that the holder of a premises licence may apply to vary the licence to specify a new premises supervisor. Government Amendment No. 18 will ensure that where premises licence holders have applied to vary a premises licence under Clause 34 to add the licensable activity of the supply of alcohol to other licensable activities, they may apply to vary the licence to specify premises supervisors, and this right is not restricted to just those who already hold licences authorising the supply of alcohol.
  Government Amendment No. 19 makes it clear that any applications under Clause 37 which may be given immediate effect for an interim period under Clause 38 must be applications in respect of premises licences which already authorise the supply of alcohol.
  Government Amendments Nos. 51 and 53 are technical amendments to improve the drafting in Clauses 149 and 152. Amendment No. 54 perfects the drafting of the Bill by changing "disturbance" at the end of subsection (3) to "nuisance". That will ensure consistency and avoid any confusion about what the police must have regard to.
  Government Amendment No. 70 adds part of the schedule to the Common Informers Act 1951, which refers to two other pieces of legislation, to the list of existing legislation to be repealed by the Bill. Both pieces of legislation, the Universities (Wine Licences) Act 1743 and the Sunday Observance Act 1780, are themselves repealed by the Bill as they no longer include provisions which can have effect. I am rather pleased to be involved in repealing the Sunday Observance Act 1780. The repeal of the latter fulfils a commitment given by the Government to include it in the Bill.
  Amendment No. 72 adds a section of the Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 to be repealed. Government Amendments Nos. 81 and 84 correct minor drafting errors.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 18.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  19 Clause 38, page 22, line 21, at end insert "in respect of a premises licence which authorises the supply of alcohol"
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 19.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 19. —(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  20 Clause 47, page 27, line 31, at end insert "or"
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 20.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 20. —(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
  20A Lord Redesdale rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 20, leave out "agree" and insert "disagree".
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
  Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 20, leave out "agree" and insert "disagree".
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  On Question, Motion, as amended, agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  21 Page 27, line 33, leave out from "practitioner" to end of line 35
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 21.
  Moved, that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 21. —(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
  21A Lord Redesdale rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 21, leave out "agree" and insert "disagree".
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
  Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 21, leave out "agree" and insert "disagree".
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  On Question, Motion, as amended, agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  22 Clause 52, page 31, line 44, after "20" insert ", (Mandatory condition in licences: exhibition of films)"
  23 Clause 69, page 40, line 36, at end insert—
  "( ) a body which—

  (1) represents those who, in relation to any such area, are responsible for, or interested in, matters relating to the protection of children from harm, and

  (ii) is recognised by the licensing authority for that area for the purposes of this section as being competent to advise it on such matters,"

  24 Clause 70, page 41, line 9, leave out "for consumption on the premises where the supply takes place"
  25 Clause 71, page 41, line 36, at end insert—
  "( ) where the relevant qualifying club activities include the supply of alcohol, whether the supplies are proposed to be for consumption on the premises or both on and off the premises,"
  26 Clause 72, page 42, line 17, after "to" insert—
  "(a)"
  27 Page 42, line 18, after "application" insert ", and
  (b) any conditions which must under section (Certificate authorising supply of alcohol for consumption off the premises)(2) to (5) or (Mandatory condition in certificates: exhibition of films) be included in the certificate"
  28 Page 42, line 27, after second "to", insert—
  "(i)"
  29 Page 42, line 29, after "objectives" insert ", and
  (ii) any conditions which must under section (Certificate authorising supply of alcohol for consumption off the premises)(2) to (5) or (Mandatory condition in certificates: exhibition of films) be included in the certificate"
  30 Page 42, line 32, at end insert—
  "( ) Subsections (2) and (3)(b) are subject to section (Certificate authorising supply of alcohol for consumption off the premises)(1) (certificate may authorise off-supplies only if it authorises on-supplies)."
  31 After Clause 72, insert the following new clause—
  "Certificate authorising supply of alcohol for consumption off the premises

  (1) A club premises certificate may not authorise the supply of alcohol for consumption off the premises unless it also authorises the supply of alcohol to a member of the club for consumption on those premises.

  (2) A club premises certificate which authorises the supply of alcohol for consumption off the premises must include the following conditions.

  (3) The first condition is that the supply must be made at a time when the premises are open for the purposes of supplying alcohol, in accordance with the club premises certificate, to members of the club for consumption on the premises.

  (4) The second condition is that any alcohol supplied for consumption off the premises must be in a sealed container.

  (5) The third condition is that any supply of alcohol for consumption off the premises must be made to a member of the club in person."

  32 After Clause 72, insert the following new clause—
  "Mandatory condition in certificates: exhibition of films

  (1) Where a club premises certificate authorises the exhibition of films, the certificate must include a condition requiring the admission of children to the exhibition of any film to be restricted in accordance with this section.

  (2) Where the film classification body is specified in the certificate, unless subsection (3)(b) applies, admission of children must be restricted in accordance with any recommendation made by that body.

  (3) Where—

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

  (b) the relevant licensing authority has notified the club which holds the certificate that this subsection applies to the film in question,admission of children must be restricted in accordance with any recommendation made by that licensing authority.

  (4) In this section—

  "children" means persons aged under 18; and
  "film classification body" means the person or persons designated as the authority under section 4 of the Video Recordings Act 1984 (c. 39) (authority to determine suitability of video works for classification)."
  33 Clause 83, page 47, line 28, at end insert—
  "( ) Subsections (2) and (3) are subject to sections (Certificate authorising supply of alcohol for consumption off the premises) and (Mandatory condition in certificates: exhibition of films) (mandatory conditions relating to supply of alcohol for consumption off the premises and to exhibitions of films)."
  34 Clause 86, page 49, line 42, at end insert—
  "( ) Subsection (3) is subject to sections (Certificate authorising supply of alcohol for consumption off the premises) and (Mandatory condition in certificates: exhibition of films) (mandatory conditions relating to supply of alcohol for consumption off the premises and to exhibitions of films)."
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 22 to 34 en bloc.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 22 to 34 en bloc.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  35 Clause 98, page 55, line 15, leave out "72" and insert "96"
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in moving that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 35 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 36 to 45, 57 and 58. The system of temporary event notices set out in the Bill is very light touch, designed to avoid the need to involve ordinary people in administrative procedures, hearings and the like. When the limits are complied with there can be no representations except from the police, and even then only on grounds of crime prevention. Local residents have no input at all, which is why in order to ensure the necessary balance there must be limits on the length, frequency and numbers attending temporary events to ensure that they are adequately protected.
  The system set out in the Bill as originally drafted provided that a non-personal licence holder may give up to five temporary event notices in any one year and a personal licence holder may give 50 but it limited the number of notices which could be given in respect of any particular premises in one year to 12. It also set a limit of 72 hours for each event. In practice, that meant that there was a maximum of 15 days every year—five events each three days long or more frequent shorter events.
  Following debates in Committee and representations from a large number of people concerned, the Government agreed to look again at the matter to ensure that the Bill would not have the unintended effect of discouraging those who wish to organise ad hoc events for clubs, including sports clubs, village and community halls, voluntary and charitable groups and so on, from carrying on such events.
  At the same time, it is sensible to ensure that local residents are not worse off in terms of the safeguards which go along with any liberalisation. We have tabled amendments that would have the effect of increasing the number of temporary event notices that could be given in any calendar year in respect of the same premises from five to 12—sensibly once a month —setting an overall maximum of 15 days in any calendar year (the same maximum implied in the Bill as originally drafted) and increasing the length of time permissible for any single temporary event from 72 hours to 96 hours, for example, for a long bank holiday weekend. A power is provided for the Secretary of State to amend
  936
  these limits, as well as the maximum number of event notices that an individual may give in a calendar year and the limit on the number of people who may attend an event—at present a maximum is 499—by order, subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
  As well as meeting the concerns of the groups that the limits in the Bill would not allow to hold the types of events that they now hold under the current regime, these measures also ensure that the residents' concerns are fully protected. The power to make changes to the limits will allow the Secretary of State to respond to the experience of the new regime. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 35.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
  Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I warmly congratulate the Government on a helpful series of amendments. I ask for a small point of clarification. I find the inter-relationship of the various amendments over several clauses a little complicated. I have just returned from a Dorset music festival a week or so ago. I can cite examples of the country houses where such events are held.
  I refer to the amendment to Clause 105, which deals with counter notices. Subsection (3) is not amended in terms of the number of temporary event notices held. That subsection applies,
  "if the relevant premises user"—
  that is, a person who has given notice under Clause 98—
  "does not hold a personal licence";
  in other words, a person authorised to supply alcohol under Clause 109.
  As I understand it, the house owner can only hold, or apply for, five events The next subsection means that anyone else, such as a charity or some other organisation, can apply for the same premises. Therefore, a house owner could have, say, five events for which he or his family had applied, and others could apply for the remainder. This means that one could hold 12 events in the premises during the year.
  However, I am not quite sure that I have got it right. If one has a country house and holds two or three concerts as part of a music festival, as well as making the house available to other charities, I want to satisfy myself that it is possible to have up to 12 events. It seems to me that perhaps the applications have to come from different persons. I may have got it wrong. I should be grateful if the Minister could clarify the matter. If I am right in thinking that up to 12 events can be held during a year, that would be extremely helpful. It is a satisfactory way out of the problems that a number of us identified at an earlier stage.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it was the interventions of the noble Lord, Lord Crickhowell, on behalf of music festivals that led us to think again about the matter. The answer to the question is that the country house owner cart apply 12 times. We have increased the limit from 5 to 12, so there is no reason—no, I am sorry, I am wrong. The owner may have to go

  937
  via a round-about route. However, I believe that the noble Lord has accepted that it is not too much of a pain. In any case, we have given the Secretary of State power to change it if necessary.
  The two points are as follows: first, yes, there can be 12 events of one day, but not more than 15 such events in respect of one house. Secondly, the protection for the neighbours of the maximum of 15 days is maintained.
  Lord Crickhowell: My Lords, I am grateful for that clarification. I am glad that my interpretation of the complex wording was right. It will have to be made clear to owners that applications may have to be made by separate bodies because the actual owner of the house or his family are limited in that respect. Others can make application to hold events in the same house as long as the total number is not exceeded. I believe that that is perfectly workable. I am very grateful to the Government for having made the changes.
  Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, we are also grateful to the Government for the changes that have been made.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  36 Clause 98, page 55, line 29, leave out "72" and insert "96"
  37 Clause 98, page 56, line 5, at end insert—
  "(7A) The Secretary of State may, by order—

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

  (b) amend subsection (5)(d) so as to substitute any number for the number for the time being specified there."

  38 Clause 105, page 59, line 23, leave out "or (4)" and insert ", (4) or (4A)"
  39 Clause 105, page 59, line 35, leave out "five" and insert "12"
  40 Clause 105, page 59, leave out lines 37 and 38 and insert—
  "(a) are in respect of the same premises as notice A, and"
  41 Clause 105, page 59, line 40, at end insert—
  "(4A) This subsection applies if, in any year in which the event period specified in notice A (or any part of it) falls, more than 15 days are days on which one or more of the following fall—

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

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

  42 Clause 105, page 60, line 3, leave out "or (4)" and insert ", (4) or (4A)"
  43 Clause 105, page 60, line 20, at end insert—
  "(10A) The Secretary of State may, by order, amend subsection (2)(b), (3)(b), (4) or (4A) so as to substitute any number for the number for the time being specified there."
  44 Clause 105, page 60, line 21, at end insert—
  "( ) a temporary event notice is in respect of the same premises as notice A if it is in respect of the whole or any part of the relevant premises or premises which include the whole or any part of those premises;"
  45 Clause 105, page 60, line 22, after "year;" insert—
  "( ) "day" means a period of 24 hours beginning at midnight;"
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 36 to 45.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 36 to 45. —(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  46 Clause 110, page 62, line 28, leave out "Central Licensing Authority" and insert "licensing authority which granted the licence"
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 46.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 46. —(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
  [Amendment No. 46A not moved.]
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  47 Clause 115, page 63, line 34, leave out from "licence" to end of line 35 and insert—

  "(a) must, if the applicant is ordinarily resident in the area of a licensing authority, be made to that authority, and

  (b) may, in any other case, be made to any licensing authority"

  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 47.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 47. —(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
  [Amendment No. 47A not moved.]
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  48 Clause 116, page 64, line 12, leave out "Central Licensing Authority" and insert "licensing authority to which it was made or has been withdrawn"
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 48.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 48. —(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
  [Amendment No. 48A not moved.]
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  49 Clause 121, page 66, line 38, leave out "Central Licensing Authority" and insert "authority to which the application is made"
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 49.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 49.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
  [Amendment No. 49A not moved.]
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  50 Leave out Clause 143
  50A Lord McIntosh of Haringey rose to move, that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 50 and do propose the following amendment in lieu of the words so left out of the Bill—
  Insert the following new Clause—
  "Unaccompanied children prohibited from certain premises

  (1) A person to whom subsection (3) applies commits an offence if—

  (a) knowing that relevant premises are within subsection (4), he allows an unaccompanied child to be on the premises at a time when they are open for the purposes of being used for the supply of alcohol for consumption there, or

  (b) he allows an unaccompanied child to be on relevant premises at a time between the hours of midnight and 5 a.m. when the premises are open for the purposes of being used for the supply of alcohol for consumption there.

  (2) For the purposes of this section—

  (a) "child" means an individual aged under 16,

  (b) a child is unaccompanied if he is not in the company of an individual aged 18 or over.

  (3) This subsection applies—

  (a) to any person who works at the premises in a capacity, whether paid or unpaid, which authorises him to request the unaccompanied child to leave the premises,

  (b) in the case of licensed premises, to—

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

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

  (c) in the case of premises in respect of which a club premises certificate has effect, to any member or officer of the club which holds the certificate who is present on the premises in a capacity which enables him to make such a request, and

  (d) in the case of premises which may be used for a permitted temporary activity by virtue of Part 5, to the premises user in relation to the temporary event notice in question.

  940

  (4) Relevant premises are within this subsection if—

  (a) they are exclusively or primarily used for the supply of alcohol for consumption on the premises, or

  (b) they are open for the purposes of being used for the supply of alcohol for consumption on the premises by virtue of Part 5 (permitted temporary activities) and, at the time the temporary event notice in question has effect, they are exclusively or primarily used for such supplies.

  (5) No offence is committed under this section if the unaccompanied child is on the premises solely for the purpose of passing to or from some other place to or from which there is no other convenient means of access or egress.

  (6) Where a person is charged with an offence under this section by reason of his own conduct it is a defence that—

  (a) he believed that the unaccompanied child was aged 16 or over or that an individual accompanying him was aged 18 or over, and

  (b) either—

  (i) he had taken all reasonable steps to establish the individual's age, or

  (ii) nobody could reasonably have suspected from the individual's appearance that he was aged under 16 or, as the case may be, under 18.

  (7) For the purposes of subsection (6), a person is treated as having taken all reasonable steps to establish an individual's age if—

  (a) he asked the individual for evidence of his age, and

  (b) the evidence would have convinced a reasonable person.

  (8) Where a person ("the accused") is charged with an offence under this section by reason of the act or default of some other person, it is a defence that the accused exercised all due diligence to avoid committing it.

  (9) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

  (10) In this section "supply of alcohol" means—

  (a) the sale by retail of alcohol, or

  (b) the supply of alcohol by or on behalf of a club to, or to the order of, a member of the club."

  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I referred earlier to these amendments. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 50 and do propose Amendment No. 50A in lieu of the words so left out of the Bill.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  51 Clause 149, page 81, line 36, leave out "sale" and insert "supply"."
  52 Leave out Clause 151
  53 Clause 152, page 83, leave out lines 16 to 19 and insert—

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

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

  (iii) any individual aged 18 or over who is authorised for the purposes of this section by such a holder or supervisor,"

  54 Clause 160, page 87, line 11, leave out "disturbance" and insert "nuisance"
  55 Clause 166, page 90, line 44, after "20" insert ", (Mandatory condition in licences: exhibition of films)"
  56 Clause 172, page 95, line 8, at end insert—

  941
  "( ) at premises which, at the time when the activity is carried on. are permanently or temporarily occupied for the purposes of the armed forces of the Crown,"
  57 Clause 194, page 107, line 34, at end insert—

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

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

  58 Page 108, line 3, leave out "(3)(b)" and insert "(3)(aa), (ab), (b)"
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 51 to 58.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 51 to 58.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  59 Clause 198, page 108, line 33, leave out subsection (6)
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 59. This is the privilege amendment.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 59.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  60 Schedule 1. page 111, line 23, leave out "playing of" and insert "performance of live music or the playing of recorded"
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 60. I shall speak also to Amendment No. 61.
  The Government have considered very carefully the amendments made to the Bill in this House. Some of those defeats were overturned during Committee in another place; some of them we have compromised on, bringing forward significant concessions. Indeed, some we have accepted wholeheartedly, subject to necessary technical modification. The issue of incidental live music, which is the subject of these amendments, falls into the third category.
  I hope that the House will allow me to make one matter clear. Regardless of all the myths and misinformation surrounding the Licensing Bill in relation to regulated entertainment, the Government are firmly committed, and have always been so, to improving the range and diversity of cultural provision available to the public, and preserving those important musical traditions that help define the character of the country. That is why the Bill was designed to make it much easier and cheaper for venues to get a licence to put on entertainment, and why it removes the perverse disincentive of the two-in-a-bar rule.
  942
  Having said that, we accept that there was more that could be done in the Bill to further that aim, which is why we have come forward with a range of concessions since the Bill was introduced. We have exempted places of public religious worship; we have amended the Bill to make it clear that entertainers who perform at unlicensed venues and do no more, will not be committing an offence. We have announced that we will exempt church halls, village halls and other community buildings from fees for entertainment. We shall use the statutory guidance to ensure that only necessary and proportionate conditions are attached to licences.
  As part of that package of concessions, we have accepted in entirety the broader of the two amendments made in this House, which would exempt incidental live music as well as incidental recorded music, subject to technical modification to ensure that the effect of the amendment is perfected.
  Government Amendment No. 61 removes an anomaly that arose as a result of amendments made in this House. The spirit of the amendment to paragraph 7 of Part 2 of Schedule I was to exempt all incidental live music as well as incidental recorded music. Paragraph 11 of Part 2 of Schedule 1 provides an exemption for unamplified incidental live music. As the Government have accepted the principle that all incidental live music should be exempt from the requirement to obtain a licence, whether amplified or not, that further exemption is unnecessary and has been removed from the Bill. We have accepted the broader of the two amendments made in this House. The effect of the amendment that the Government overturned in the Commons is subsumed entirely within the one that we accepted. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 60.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
  1 p.m.
  Lord Redesdale: My Lords, we thank the Government for accepting this amendment. We support the amendments that they have put forward.
  Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, we also thank the Government and support Amendment Nos. 60 and 61.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  61 Page 112, line 13, leave out paragraph 11
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 61.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 61.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  62 Page 112, line 31, leave out paragraph 12
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 62.
  The amendment made in another place reverses an extremely damaging amendment made by this House. That amendment, which was called—misleadingly, in my view—"Exemption for small premises", exposes the public, particularly children, to great safety and harm risks, leaves residents without a voice to protest against nuisance and strips away the powers of the police to control crime and disorder at vast swathes of venues across the country, many of which may be totally unsuitable for the provision of regulated entertainment.
  I received a letter today from Councillor Simon Milton, the leader of Westminster City Council, who says that if our amendment were not made, 62 per cent of the licensed premises in Westminster would no longer be subject to licensing. He says, in particular, that since virtually all strip clubs are for fewer than 250 people—I am sure that that applies to all of them— there would be no licensing of such clubs. Imagine what that means.
  I understand the sentiments behind the amendment and the deregulatory intention.
  Lord Monson: My Lords—
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, that it might be better if I made my speech before he has an opportunity to intervene, after which I can respond to him.
  The intention was to exempt a kind of genteel, low-level and perhaps traditional music made in small premises from the perceived burdens of the new licensing regime. I stress the word "perceived" because the Licensing Bill strips away most of the burdens and costs associated with the existing licensing system. I agree with those sentiments, but the amendment is seriously misguided. It is unfortunate that the world does not consist solely of sophisticated jazz trios playing to well-behaved and civilised audiences. However, I used to go to a jazz club in Paris where the sensitivity of neighbours was so great that the audience was not allowed to applaud; instead they simply click-click-clicked their fingers to show appreciation. Perhaps that system could be introduced in this country also. The amendment would have destroyed all the protection, including the kind that I have been describing.
  I hope that it does not come as too much of a shock when I say that the world is not like that. The most popular forms of live music in this country consist of loud and sometimes quite aggressive rock and pop music that provoke audience reaction. Many forms of entertainment give rise to serious issues of crime and disorder, public safety, public nuisance and the protection of children from harm. It should come as no surprise that both the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Local Government Association are vehemently opposed to an exemption of this nature.
  944
  The Bill sets out a simple, flexible and proportionate system designed to address those issues while sweeping away unnecessary barriers that stop performers entertaining the public.
  The amendment made in this House would exempt any entertainment from the provisions of the Bill provided the audience does not exceed 250 at any one time and the entertainment finishes by 11.30 p.m. Entertainment, in the Bill, includes the playing of recorded music and performing live music, dancing, performing plays, exhibiting films, indoor sports entertainment and other entertainment of a similar description. All those types of entertainment would be covered by the exemption.
  I reiterate that the description "exemption for small premises" is misleading. The exemption relates to the size of the audience, not the premises. The exemption would cover, for example, Fatboy Slim or Marilyn Manson playing music at full blast in the middle of a residential area so long as there were fewer than 250 people present at any one time. It would even exempt the Albert Hall if there were fewer than 250 people in the audience. Why should an audience of Fewer than 250 be denied the expert consideration of their protection, and why should local residents be denied a voice?
  I know that the musicians' lobby argues that existing health and safety and nuisance legislation should be enough to protect the public on those counts. However, I note that the Musicians' Union publishes a code of good practice relating to the health and safety of performers that goes beyond what health and safety law requires—good luck to it. However, the Government disagree fundamentally with that view for several reasons.
  Fire safety law is often enforced through conditions attached to licences under the existing regimes. Exempting vast swathes of entertainment from licensing removes the opportunity to ensure public protection from fire risks through preventative measures.
  Existing health and safety legislation is reactive. Licensing offers the opportunity to prevent problems before they have an opportunity to arise. Health and safety legislation relies on an individual operator knowing what they need to do to protect the public at an entertainment event and actually doing it. One of the key aims of licensing is to ensure that that happens. For example, if I were to put on a live band at my local community venue, I would not have the first idea about what I needed to do to ensure that the public and performers were protected from hazards arising from staging, lighting and electrical cabling. But the experts who would have the opportunity to comment on my licence application would certainty know what is needed.
  If we left the small premises amendment in the Bill, it would take public protection out of the hands of the experts and give it, in many cases, to amateurs. That is not right, and I do not think it melodramatic to say that it would put lives at risk. However, if we put to one side our differences on the issue of public safety and public nuisance, the exemption made in this House has

  945
  very serious consequences for the two other licensing objectives in the Bill—the prevention of crime and disorder and the protection of children from harm.
  The potential effects of the exemption in those areas are wide-ranging. For example, in the case of a small cinema holding up to 250 people—there are quite a number of those—a child of any age would be free to enter and watch a film classified for 18 year-olds. That is because the recommendations of the British Board of Film Classification have no standing in law. They are currently enforced through conditions attached by the local authority to cinema licences under the Cinemas Act 1985. The Bill will eventually replace that Act in England and Wales. It is intended that similar conditions will be attached to premises licences held for cinemas or other premises exhibiting films. But, without those conditions, the BBFC classifications would be wholly undermined. There would be no way in which a licensing authority for a particular area could seek to have a say in the classification of films exhibited in its area.
  The effect of the amendment is to give young children unrestricted access to sex and violent films in cinemas. There was outrage when I said that in the House earlier. I say it again because it is true. We have received representations in strong terms from the BBFC on the issue. I understand that other noble Lords have been on the receiving end of those representations.
  The amendment also has a serious effect on the crime prevention objective. The effect is wide-ranging, but I shall illustrate it by way of example. The exemption would allow an individual involved in the sale of drugs to organise entertainment, perhaps a disco, for 250 teenagers with a view to selling his target audience drugs. As the event would not require the authority of a licence or even a temporary event notice, the police would not be informed and they would lose their right to intervene on crime prevention grounds and have the event stopped. They could intervene only after the event if some nuisance or tragedy had occurred.
  Is that the type of licensing system that we want? We want a licensing system that aims to facilitate the provision of diversity of entertainment in a responsible way, subject only to those controls that are absolutely necessary. Are we prepared to put that at risk? I do not believe that that could possibly have been the intention of noble Lords opposite when they carried this amendment. They have an opportunity to put things right by supporting the amendment made in another place. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 62.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
  62A Baroness Buscombe rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 62, leave out the words from "that" to the end and insert "the House do disagree with the Commons in their amendment but do propose the following amendment in lieu thereof"—
  Page 112, line 30, at end insert—
  946
  "Small events: live music

  (1) The provision of entertainment consisting of the performance of live music is not to be regarded as the provision of regulated entertainment for the purposes of this Act where—

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

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

  (2) The provision of entertainment facilities solely for the purposes of entertainment described in sub-paragraph (1) is not to be regarded as the provision of regulated entertainment for the purposes of this Act.(2) Nothing in this paragraph shall be read as rendering invalid or otherwise affecting any provision of, or any regulation made under, any other legislation that applies to the entertainment, the entertainment facilities or the premises on which the entertainment is to take place."

  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I speak to Amendment No. 62A, and to respond to, and substantially disagree with, several issues raised by the Minister this morning. He knows that we are sticking to what we have said in repeated debates in your Lordships' House and on behalf of Her Majesty's Opposition in another place.
  We understand that the Government's concern is particularly with regard to health and safety. I will seek, as briefly as I am able, to deflect some of the Government's arguments. We contend that there is more than adequate existing legislation to meet the objectives of the Bill, making superfluous the imposition of specific conditions on a licence. We support the view that a small premises exemption is a feasible option within the proposed regime. On health and safety, there is a duty under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 for employers to ensure the safety of their employees and others who may be affected by what they do. Thus, publicans, event organisers and others already have a duty with which they must comply. They must ensure that their premises are safe for the use to which they are put, and that any equipment used on the premises is safe, not only for the user, but for all those in the vicinity.
  When there is no employer, a similar duty is imposed on the person with control of the premises to ensure that the premises are safe for those using any plant or substances provided for them, which could include promoters or event organisers when premises are let to them to use. Breach of those sections is a criminal offence, with a maximum fine of £20,000 in a magistrates' court and an unlimited fine in a Crown Court. Publicans already have to comply with those provisions.
  The enforcement agencies are also able to serve improvement and prohibition notices—the former requiring steps to be taken before an event can take place, and the latter preventing the event from occurring. Breach of those notices is an imprisonable offence.
  The Government have suggested that existing health and safety legislation does not provide a sufficient safeguard because it is reliant on the duty holder complying with it, understanding it and taking steps to ensure the safety of patrons before the event. In other words, it is reactive legislation and imposes no site-specific requirements as licensed conditions would do. That is true, to a degree. However, such a statement fails

  947
  to recognise two important issues: although conditions may be proactive in that they are placed on a licence prior to an event taking place, those imposing non-physical requirements—such as occupancy levels, the checking of fire doors and so forth—are still reliant on the licence holder complying with them.
  There is already an existing obligation on every employer and self-employed person—which could include performers—to undertake an assessment of the risks to the health and safety of their employees, themselves and others who may be affected by their conduct under the Management of Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999. Not only must a publican have already carried out a risk assessment of his premises, if he has a band, comedian or some other form of entertainment, he must undertake a new assessment considering the risks posed by the new activity. He may consider restricting the occupancy levels, ensuring that any staging is safe and so forth.
  On fire safety, the risk assessment must also include consideration of any risk from fire. As from 2004, when the proposed Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order becomes effective, a specific duty will be placed on an employer or the person responsible for the activity being undertaken to undertake an assessment of the risk posed by fire.
  I could go on. Noise nuisance is a concern. Concerns have been expressed about the inability of existing legislation to deal proactively with the potential noise nuisance arising from unlicensed premises. It is accepted that local authorities, when exercising their powers under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 to serve noise abatement notices, tend to be reactive, and act following complaints. However, the officers have the power to serve such notices and must do when they are satisfied that a noise nuisance is likely to occur. Thus, when a premises is known to be a problem, a notice can be served requiring steps to be taken or works to be undertaken to prevent noise nuisance.
  On anti-social behaviour, it would be wrong not to mention the Bill currently under scrutiny in Committee. The Bill provides councils with powers to deal with noise nuisance—among other issues—and creates a closure order that councils can serve upon premises holding a premises licence or a temporary event notice, closing them down immediately for 24 hours.
  Although we accept that the safety of the public is a major consideration, there is a strong argument that the licensing regime for entertainment is overly restrictive and unnecessary due to existing controls, and potentially falls foul of the European Convention. If the requirement for a licensing regime is accepted based on the objectives stated in the Bill, we must decide whether a distinction can and should be made between events based on capacity and timing—namely, whether there should be a small premises or, preferably, a small event exemption. That is what we are putting before your Lordships today. By allowing events to take place and limiting the audience to 200 people, as in our amendment, and to a terminal hour
  948
  of 11.30 p.m., the Government would surely be seen to be recognising a cultural need and desire, while ensuring that the local amenity is not unduly affected.
  The health and safety implications of such an exemption would be no different from those affecting a public house showing live football to potentially many hundreds of patrons or a popular comedian entertaining an audience of hundreds in a like premises, both of which fall outside the definition of entertainment.
  There is extraordinary inconsistency in the Bill. A limited amount of entertainment that is not broadcast will be unduly restricted, but a large plasma screen pouring out very loud music or the sounds of a football match to hundreds of people will be outside the remit of the Bill. Whatever the entertainment, each would have to be risk assessed for both general and fire risks, and each would be subject to noise control, not to mention the powers of the police. There is justification for such events to be treated differently.
  I heard what the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh said, but we feel very strongly about the issue. Unless I hear some new and overwhelming argument, I intend to press the amendment. I beg to move.
  Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 62, leave out the words from "that" to the end and insert "the House do disagree with the Commons in their amendment but do propose an amendment in lieu thereof.—(Baroness Buscombe.)
  1.15 p.m.
  Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I strongly support the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe. She has covered the health and safety grounds for our amendment, so it is not appropriate for me to cover them again today. We have returned to the amendment on several occasions.
  The amendment has been changed to take account of some of the concerns expressed at earlier stages of the Bill. However, one fundamental principle that should not be overlooked is that, although the Minister used some scare stories—even embellishing some of them—about drug pushers organising discos, we should not overlook the fact that drug pushers could get a temporary events notice, but they would still be undertaking a criminal act.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am sorry, but the only criterion for a temporary events notice is that the police have the opportunity to object for the purposes of crime prevention. It is not true that such people could get a temporary events notice.
  Lord Redesdale: My Lords, I am sure that anyone who was intending to undertake criminal activity would not put it in the temporary event notice. I also foresee a problem for the police in dealing with tens of thousands of temporary event notices, although I am sure that they will be notified and are extremely professional. We must examine whether all forms of criminality will he stamped out simply by achieving a temporary events notice. Perhaps that is a side issue, however. We have to remember what the purpose of

  949
  this Bill is. We support this Bill. We support deregulation. The Government have attempted, rightly, to provide conditions which would expand the number of venues available for music. However, we also have to come back to the fact that, although this is a deregulation Bill, it would add a vast amount of regulation. This is one of the issues raised by the Joint Committee on Human Rights in their Twelfth Report of Session 2002–3. On Page 17 they said:
  "The Bill leaves a patchwork of different licensing requirements without a coherent rationale, calling in question the existence of a pressing social need for the restriction on freedom of expression for a licensing regime for public entertainment, and so undermining the Government's claim that such a licensing regime is a justifiable interference with the right to freedom of expression under ECHR Article 10/".
  The Government have raised the issue of health and safety. We understand those issues and believe they have been addressed. They raised the issue of the police being informed and I know the police are concerned over this. However, we also have to be concerned about introducing legislation that will restrict and curtail the right to expression, available up until now. On that basis I shall support the amendment.
  I gave the Minister notice earlier of a particular question about the provision of folk dance. I know that it falls outside this amendment. However, I have had a large number of representations from the folk dance world. Kim Howells, his right honourable friend in another place has definite views on folk dance. However, I would be very grateful if the Minister could give some indication over how temporary event notices will work in relation to Morris men so that they may he reassured in carrying on their activities.
  Lord Monson: My Lords, I rise solely on the narrow question of strip clubs. The Minister tried to chill our blood by claiming that nearly all such clubs would be totally unregulated if the amendment of the noble Baroness were accepted. I am not a great expert on such places but I would guess that virtually no strip club closes as early as 11:30 p.m. and that none nowadays employ live music as opposed to recorded or taped music.
  Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, I have been silent today as I was probably unnecessarily loquacious when the Bill was last in your Lordships' House. I shall be very brief now. I have had some passages of arms with the Minister on amendments to this and other Bills. I owe it to him, in his new capacity, to seek to repair my reputation for consistency. I wish to put on record that I have seen the letter from the leader of Westminster City Council to him and also the letter from the noble Lord, Lord Clarke of Hampstead along similar lines. The Minister knows what they said in relation to central London. Indeed, he has quoted from them this morning.
  I did not speak when the original amendment was carried in your Lordships' House because we were anxious to make progress. I shall not rehearse the arguments in the letters now when we are again
  950
  anxious to make progress. However, I support the present position of the Government, particularly given the implications for central London.
  Lord Colwyn: My Lords, I found the Minister almost very persuasive on this argument. However this is not what the amendment is about. As far as I am concerned, this amendment is about trying to find premises to encourage young musicians. Throughout the passage of this Bill, the Musicians' Union, of which I have been a member for many years, Jazz Services and the English Folk Dance & Song Society have all agreed that further rejection of this amendment would be a disaster for the performing arts. The Government are going against their policy of trying to encourage young musicians, singers and actors. As my noble friend Lady Buscombe said, the Bill allows big-screen broadcasts and pre-recorded amplified music. It allows a play, musical performance, disco or dance at a garden fete or a church. But it insists on a licence when exactly the same event takes place at a school, pub or restaurant.
  My noble friend has covered the noise and the public safety aspects. The Minister in another place, Dr Howells, has said that live music has been distorted for years by the two-in-a-bar rule and that jazz has suffered especially. The two-in-a-bar rule is currently the only form of limited exemption for live music. Both Ministers have said, in this and another place, that to take up a public entertainment licence it is just a matter of placing a tick in the appropriate box. It is not that simple. There is a worry that local authorities will become more involved. They will inspect premises and come up with alterations that must be made—a new fire door here, an exit there. The licensees are unlikely to want to take that risk. The two-in-a-bar rule becomes the none-in-a-bar rule.
  I read carefully the debate on this amendment in another place. There, members of the Labour Party supported this amendment, yet when it came to the vote, they voted the opposite way. I have been co-chairman of the Parliamentary Jazz Club for many years. There are many members of your Lordships' House, unfortunately not in their places, who have lobbied for many years to get rid of this two-in-a-bar rule to encourage the provision of premises for young musicians. I hope they are outside and will vote for us. This amendment is about encouraging young musicians. Even if it is rejected, I hope the Minister will come up with some ideas as to how we might achieve this.
  Lord Williamson of Horton: My Lords, I have just two points for the Minister. The first is that the Minister said in his first intervention that village halls were already exempted. If that is true, I should like to know where that is in the Bill. Secondly, I find it extremely difficult to believe that strip clubs and film shows would be covered by this exemption. I find it impossible to believe that a strip show or a film show

  951
  would fall within the definition of entertainment consisting of the performance of live music. The points raised by the Minister are largely irrelevant.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am taken aback by the persistence of noble Lords. The Front Benches, in particular, have not even started to address or challenge the points I made in my opening speech. Our concerns are not just about individual parts of the licensing regime, but the whole of it. Amendment No. 62A would strip out huge chunks of all licensing legislation. The Government are concerned with public safety and the prevention of crime and disorder. We are concerned with the protection of public nuisance and with the protection of children from harm. When the noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, talks about fire safety regulations, does she not realise that almost all fire safety regulations affecting cinemas are contained in regulations made under licensing law? The 1955 Cinematograph Regulations are part of licensing law, not of fire safety law. They would disappear if this amendment were carried.
  When the noble Baroness says in her amendment that the entertainment should cease no later than 11:30 p.m., does she not realise that under her amendment it could start again at 11:31 p.m. and carry on for 23 hours 59 minutes? There is no protection against late night noise and nuisance or anything else in the Opposition amendment. Does she not realise that the difference between 2(X) and 250 is nugatory? This is not the issue at all. Is she more concerned with the safety of 8,000 people in the Albert Hall than with 199 or 201 young people in a basement club in Soho? Regulation under licensing law to protect these people in terms of public nuisance, fire and health and safety would be wiped out by this amendment.
  The noble Baroness referred to noise nuisances. If the premises are outside the scope of the Bill because of an exemption, how are the local authority environmental health officers to know that a form of entertainment will take place that is likely to create a noise nuisance for the purposes of the 1990 Act? The noble Baroness, Lady Oppenheim-Barnes, was eloquent on this subject on an earlier amendment. She said that the local environmental health officers cannot do anything, because the noise is intermittent. Someone complains under the Environmental Protection Act—they cannot do it under licensing law—the environmental health officers come along, and, by that time—or perhaps because of a tip-off—the premise has been closed down, and it simply starts again after the visit.
  That is not adequate. Health and safety conditions imposed on the licence will be based on experts' concerns specific to the premises in question. That is much better protection than that which is provided in more general health and safety law. That is not to say that health and safety law is wrong, but it is generalised. When one is talking about alcohol and entertainment, it is better to have an operating licence that ensures in advance that the protection is there. The operating licence will make it clear what a particular applicant for a licence must do to gain a
  952
  licence. In health and safety legislation, duties are expressed in general terms only. The only power for authorities to intervene is if something goes wrong.
  I can say something nice to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, about: morris dancing. He will have heard, as I have, the moral law that only two things are absolutely forbidde—incest and morris dancing. I want to make it clear that when morris dancers arrive at a pub unannounced—for example, on the way back from another event—and have a pint in a pub garden, and start dancing, there is no need for an authorisation of this kind. They would not be providing entertainment that fell within the definition of the provision of regulated entertainment. No genuinely spontaneous activity—I say this to the noble Lord, Lord Colwyn, as well—whether it is singing, dancing, or playing a musical instrument, will be caught by the Bill.
  I heard what the noble Lord said about the Joint Committee on Human Rights. Unfortunately, it looks as if the Joint Committee did not consider the department's reply of 10th April to its seventh report. Its officials have apologised for that. The context in which the quotation that he read out is made is the distinction made in the Bill, under pressure, after amendment, that there is a difference between churches and places of worship and other places. That is the context in which it makes that point.
  Nothing that I said in my opening speech on this amendment has been adequately answered by this amendment. I put it to your Lordships that to allow this amendment through would be allowing huge risks of danger, physical danger, moral danger, and licence in the other sense—the lack of any reasonable and regular controls in this Bill.
  They would take away protections that are essential, not only in central London—the noble Lord, Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, is right about that—but all over the country. Those are essential protections for the people of this country. I urge the House not to approve Amendment No. 62A.
  Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response, although it was somewhat predictable. I am sorry that the Minister did not accept any of the arguments put forward, I felt quite cogently, regarding the many regulations that already exist. Employers complain daily that they must put up with those regulations—on risk assessments, health and safety and so on—to carry out their daily business.
  I am grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. The Government know that our interests are for those people who have been lobbying, including the 110,000 musicians and friends of music and entertainment who signed a petition that was delivered to Number 10 this week regarding the future of entertainment and live music in small premises We care passionately about the future enjoyment of all those who go to pubs in this country. Unless this amendment is made, that future enjoyment for all of us, as well as the livelihoods of musicians and entertainers, will be put at great risk.

  953
  We are not satisfied. We know that the Government are listening to us on one level, but they have simply failed to even try to come up with a workable solution that is acceptable to us. Today, we are providing a workable solution. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
  1.35 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 62A) shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 128; Not-Contents, 113.

  Division No. 2

  CONTENTS

  Aberdare, L.

  James of Holland Park, B.

  Addington, L.

  Jenkin of Roding, L.

  Alexander of Weedon, L.

  Jopling, L.

  Anelay of St Johns, B.

  Laing of Dunphail L.

  Astor.V.

  Livsey of Talgarth, L.

  Astor of Hever, L.

  Luke, L.

  Beaumont of Whitley, L.

  Lyell, L.

  Biffen, L.

  McColl of Dulwich, L.

  Blatch, B.

  McNally, L.

  Bradshaw, L.

  Maddock, B.

  Bridgeman, V.

  Mancroft, L.

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Burnham, L.

  Masham of Ilton, B.

  Buscombe, B.

  Mayhew of Twysden, L.

  Carey of Clifton, L.

  Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

  Carlile of Berriew, L.

  Miller of Hendon, B.

  Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

  Molyneaux of Killead, L.

  Carnegy of Lour, B.

  Monson, L.

  Chalfont, L.

  Mowbray and Stourton, L.

  Chalker of Wallasey, B.

  Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

  Clement-Jones, L.

  Noakes, B.

  Coe, L.

  Northbrook, L.

  Colville of Culross, V.

  Northesk, E.

  Colwyn, L.

  Northover, B.

  Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

  Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

  Craigavon, V.

  O'Cathain, B.

  Crathorne, L.

  Park of Monmouth, B.

  Cumberlege, B.

  Perry of Southwark, B.

  Dholakia, L.

  Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

  Dixon-Smith, L.

  Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

  Dundee, E.

  Quirk, L.

  Eccles of Moulton, B.

  Rawlings, B.

  Elton, L.

  Razzall, L.

  Erroll, E.

  Reay, L.

  Ezra, L.

  Redesdale, L.

  Falkland, V.

  Rees, L.

  Fookes, B.

  Rennard, L.

  Fowler, L.

  Renton, L.

  Gardner of Parkes, B.

  Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

  Geddes, L.

  Roper, L.

  Glentoran, L.

  Russell, E.

  Goodhart, L.

  Saatchi, L.

  Greaves, L.

  St John of Bletso, L.

  Harris of Richmond, B.

  Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

  Hayhoe, L.

  Sandberg, L.

  Henley, L.

  Sandwich, E.

  Higgins, L.

  Seccombe, B. [Teller]

  Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

  Selsdon, L.

  Hooper, B.

  Sharp of Guildford, B.

  Howe, E.

  Shaw of Northstead, L.

  Howe of Aberavon, L.

  Shutt of Greetland, L.

  Howe of Idlicote, B.

  Skelmersdale, L.

  Hunt of Wirral, L.

  Smith of Clifton, L.

  954

  Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

  Ullswater, V.

  Strange, B.

  Vivian, L.

  Strathclyde, L.

  Wakeham, L.

  Swinfen, L.

  Walmsley, B.

  Taverne, L.

  Walpole, L.

  Thomas of Gwydir, L.

  Warnock, B.

  Thomas of Walliswood, B.

  Watson of Richmond, L.

  Thomson of Monifieth, L.

  Williams of Crosby, B.

  Tope, L.

  Williamson of Horton, L.

  Trefgarne, L.

  Willoughby de Broke, L.

  Trumpington, B.

  Windlesham, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Acton, L.

  Jordan, L.

  Ahmed, L.

  Kilclooney, L.

  Amos, B.

  King of West Bromwich, L.

  Andrews, B.

  Lea of Crondall, L.

  Archer of Sandwell, L.

  Lipsey, L.

  Ashley of Stoke, L.

  Lockwood, B.

  Ashton of Upholland, B.

  Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

  Avebury, L.

  McCarthy, L.

  Bach, L.

  Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

  Bassam of Brighton, L.

  McIntosh of Haringey, L.

  Berkeley, L.

  McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

  Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

  MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

  Billingham, B.

  Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

  Blackstone, B.

  Marsh, L.

  Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

  Mason of Barnsley, L.

  Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

  Massey of Darwen, B.

  Brookman, L.

  Merlyn-Rees, L.

  Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

  Mitchell, L.

  Bruce of Donington, L.

  Morgan, L.

  Campbell-Savours, L.

  Morgan of Huyton, B.

  Carter, L.

  Morris of Manchester, L.

  Chorley, L.

  Murray of Epping Forest, L.

  Christopher, L.

  Nicol, B.

  Clark of Windermere, L.

  O'Neill of Bengarve, B.

  Clarke of Hampstead, L.

  Orme, L.

  Clinton-Davis, L.

  Patel of Blackburn, L.

  Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

  Pitkeathley, B.

  Crawley, B.

  Plant of Highfield.L.

  David, B.

  Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

  Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]

  Prys-Davies, L.

  Desai, L.

  Puttnam, L.

  Dixon, L.

  Radice, L.

  Dormand of Easington, L.

  Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

  Dubs, L.

  Rendell of Babergh, B.

  Elder, L.

  Richard, L.

  Evans of Parkside, L.

  Rogers of Riverside, L.

  Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

  Rooker, L.

  Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

  Sainsbury of Turville, L.

  Faulkner of Worcester, L.

  Scotland of Asthal, B.

  Filkin, L.

  Sewel, L.

  Gale, B.

  Sheldon, L.

  Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

  Simon, V.

  Gordon of Strathblane, L.

  Stone of Blackheath, L.

  Goudie, B.

  Strabolgi, L.

  Gould of Potternewton, B.

  Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

  Graham of Edmonton, L.

  Temple-Morris, L.

  Grocott, L. [Teller]

  Thornton, B.

  Hardy of Wath, L.

  Turner of Camden, B.

  Harrison, L.

  Uddin, B.

  Haskel, L.

  Warner, L.

  Hayman, B.

  Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

  Hollis of Heigham, B.

  Whitaker, B.

  Howarth of Breckland, B.

  Whitty, L.

  Hoyle, L.

  Wilkins, B.

  Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

  Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord President of the Council)

  Hylton, L.

  Jones, L.

  Woolmer of Leeds, L.

  Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
  1.46 p.m.
  Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration of Commons amendments be adjourned.
  Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
  Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure.
  Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
  [The Sitting was suspended from 1.46 to 2 p.m. for Judicial Business and to 3 p.m. for Public Business.]

The Lord Chancellor: Leave of Absence
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, may I take the opportunity to inform the House that I will be undertaking a ministerial visit to Leeds on Friday, 20th June? Accordingly, I trust that the House will grant me leave of absence.

Light Pollution
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bayasked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their policy on light pollution caused by sky glow obscuring the night sky and wasting energy.
The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Lord Rooker): My Lords, the Government's policy on light pollution is that such issues are most appropriately dealt with by raising awareness of the consequences of badly installed lighting; by providing guidance on how those problems might be mitigated; and by encouraging more effective use of existing planning powers. We are doing all those things. Since 2002–03, local authorities have been required to benchmark their energy use in street lighting. Local improvement targets will be set from 2003–04.
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Has he seen the striking satellite photographs in the recent CPRE report on "Night Blight", showing how light pollution has grown dramatically over the past seven years, particularly in the South East? Much of south-east England is a nasty orange glow, with just a patch of dark sky over the Isle of Wight. I press the Minister particularly on the need for new powers for local authorities to control nuisance lighting and deal with what the Government's consultation paper last year called the detrimental effects of light pollution.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the answer to the noble Lord's question is "Yes". The photographs are striking. There has been an increase in light pollution: there is no question about that. The issue is what we do about it.
956
The Select Committee in another place is carrying out a study at the moment. We wholly support it and look forward to the recommendations. In 1997, as I said, we issued a good practice guide for lighting in the countryside. In 1998, in the transport White Paper, it was made clear that, if lighting is essential, it should be done in a way that minimises nuisance.
Needless to say, accidents are reduced by a third because of good street lighting, but we must be intelligent about how we organise lighting. Some £300 million of private finance credits have been made available this financial year for improved street lighting. Last October, Living Places—Power, Rights and Responsibilities dealt with nuisance lighting and requested views on updating the country code. Given the normal lethargy of governments, we have moved with the speed of light on the issue. Before anybody asks a supplementary, I can tell the House that that is, as I recall from my rote days at school, 186,000 miles a second.
Lord Tanlaw: My Lords, I declare an interest as chairman of the All-Party Astronomy and Space Environment Group. Will we be allowed to discuss the Government's report on dark skies, which will, I believe, come out in the autumn? Will the Minister say—he did not say it in his reply—that there will be what I call "no-glow" areas on the outskirts of towns for amateur astronomers?
Any amateur astronomer who has seen, as I have, the moons of Jupiter, the rings of Saturn or the nearest nebula of Andromeda has a sense of wonder. That is being denied to young children and all amateur astronomers throughout the country. Towns such as Swindon have an undeflected incandescent glow of sodium that can be seen far out in outer space, outer space that people cannot see from ground level as a result.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I suspect that the only reason why Swindon has that glow is that all those traffic islands have to be lit.
The noble Lord is right. I am not in a position to promise debates, but there is a lot going on. The Government are consulting on some of the issues that I mentioned. We will announce the results of the consultation. Nevertheless, as I said, the Select Committee in another place is carrying out an inquiry to which my department and others will give evidence. I have no doubt that it will be debated.
We need positive solutions to the issue. As far as I am aware, only one country has legislation on light pollution—the Czech Republic. There is a lot to do, as the recent satellite photographs show. There is no question about that.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, I declare an interest as a vice-president and former chairman of the CPRE. I strongly support the two noble Lords who have spoken so far.
Does the Minister agree that, in order to light the ground, one need not light the sky, in general? Will the noble Lord ensure that, if representations are made

957
about undue sky lighting in areas for which the Government have direct responsibility, such as motorways and trunk roads, he takes up any complaint and deals with it speedily?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the answer is "Yes". I agree with the noble Lord. Although the light itself is not a planning issue, the siting of the installations sometimes is. We covered the issue in PPG 12, 23 and 17, planning policy guidance that local authorities are, by and large, required to follow on development plans, on planning and pollution control and on planning for open space sport and recreation.
The noble Lord is right: in order to light the ground, we do not have to light the sky. That applies to sports facilities, town centres or other spaces. At the same time, people want roads that are lit well enough to cut down accidents and places lit well enough to deter crime. We do not have to light the sky in order to do that.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there was a time when the price of the electricity for lighting streets at night fell virtually to zero? There was a need to do something with the electricity generated at night, because the generating capacity was not sufficiently flexible and could not be shut down. Can the Minister assure the House that the Government are taking that issue into account in their consideration of the lighting problem? If electricity is generated, it must go somewhere, and it would be better if it went into something more useful than lighting the night sky.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the issue that the noble Lord raises is not a problem today. As I said, the Government have made available £300 million in PFI credits to local authorities for this financial year to deal with street lighting, so that they can use more modern street lighting. That is over and above their revenue support money. There is a further £85 million for London street lighting.
When I was first elected to another place, a long time ago, the street lights and the television went off at ten o'clock at night. However, that was the result of a contentious industrial dispute, rather than an attempt to save energy.

Judiciary/Home Office Relations
3.8 p.m.
Lord Ackner Lord Ackner asked Her Majesty's Government:
What action they propose to take to achieve the cooperative relationship required between the judiciary and the Home Office which the Lord Chief Justice, Lord Woolf, informed the House on 21st May was missing (Official Report, col. 882).
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, the Home Office is
958
committed to ensuring that consultation and co-operation with the judiciary plays an important part in the development of policy. We recognise that, in order to deliver vital improvements to the criminal justice system, it is necessary to work together closely. The Government are committed to constructive dialogue about areas of shared concern, and we will seek to maintain and strengthen regular contact between the Home Office and the judiciary.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her Answer. Has she had the opportunity to consider in detail the devastating criticism made by the Lord Chief Justice and the Lords Justices who preside in the Court of Appeal Criminal Division, which is contained in a 22-page, 71-paragraph memo deposited in the Library, following the Lord Chief Justice's speech at Second Reading of the Criminal Justice Bill on Monday? Does she appreciate that it covers not only what has been known as the ministerial decrees in sentencing—the Blunkett revenge on the Convention on Human Rights—but a whole variety of other matters, such as disclosure, expert evidence, bad character, hearsay evidence and trial without jury. Will the noble Baroness confirm that the Government will answer the points in that memorandum paragraph by paragraph and put the Government's response in the Library before the Committee stage in a week's time?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I had the advantage of hearing the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice during the Second Reading and had the privilege of responding to him. Secondly, the department has fully taken into account the issues contained in the memorandum to which the noble and learned Lord refers. Thirdly, all those points, made as part of the Second Reading speech of the Lord Chief Justice will be taken into account when we make our individual responses on the Bill clause by clause.
Lord Renton: My Lords, as the Government consider the future of the judiciary, will they ensure that the judiciary continues to make a major contribution to our debates on legal matters? That is an essential part of our democracy, and has been for generations. It must continue.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, of course I hear what the noble Lord says, but the original Question related to the relationship. I am no longer a Minister in the Lord Chancellor's Department, now renamed, so I no longer have primary responsibility in that regard. However, the future of the judiciary is certainly of enormous importance. I am sure that it will be quite safe in the hands of the Government.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, is not the best solution to get responsibility for the criminal law out of the Home Office and into the Department for Constitutional

959
Affairs and turn it into a proper Ministry of Justice? Is not that the logical conclusion of the process started last Thursday?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we are starting a debate that I am sure we shall have for quite some time in this House. Some will say "Yea" and some will say "Nay", but in due course your Lordships and Members in another place will decide.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, on the subject of a co-operative relationship between the judiciary and the Home Secretary, did we not valuably learn on Second Reading from the Lord Chief Justice that there is a drastic and, in the opinion of the judges, dangerous disparity between some of the sentencing provisions in the Bill and the practice direction that the Lord Chief Justice published only in May last year? Was not that practice direction submitted in draft by him to the Home Secretary and published with the Home Secretary's concurrence? Before the provisions were introduced at a late stage in another place, what "constructive dialogue"—to use the noble Baroness's expression—took place between the Government and the judiciary?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the judiciary and the department have had an opportunity to speak on several occasions. The last discussion between our department and the Lord Chief Justice was when the Lord Chief Justice met my right honourable friend the Home Secretary on 11th June. I am pleased to say that I noted when the Lord Chief Justice gave his speech that he acknowledged that he and the Government begged to differ. This House, together with another place, will have to determine the framework that is proper to be contained in the Bill. It is a matter for Parliament to decide, and Parliament will do so.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, on the subject of the independence of the judiciary, can the Minister help me? Who speaks for the Government on that matter? Is it the Prime Minister, who tells us that the Government's policy is to enhance the independence of the judiciary, or is it the Home Secretary who tells us that the judiciary needs to be made more accountable and is highly critical of some of its recent judgments?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the Government's view is absolutely firm. Both my right honourable friend the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister have said robustly that they wish to protect the independence of the judiciary. They give way to no one on that.
Earl Russell: My Lords, the Minister may be aware that last week, in its 21st report, the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments expressed a significant doubt whether one of the instruments before the House was intra vires. The Government thought otherwise. Will the Minister give us an undertaking
960
that, in the not impossible event of the judges agreeing with the Joint Committee, the Government will not accuse the judges of rewriting the law? Will they further accept that if they were a little less certain that they were right, they would suffer less pain when occasionally they are found to be wrong?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I reassure noble Lords that the Government enjoy greatly the benefit of the democracy we have. We know that it is the joy of those who sit on the Benches opposite—and, indeed, sometimes of those who sit on the Benches behind me—to tell the Government in an unequivocal way when they believe that the Government are wrong.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, one criticism made by the Lord Chief Justice in his speech on Second Reading which has not been the subject matter of any comment is that the sentences that the Home Secretary has laid down in Schedule 17 will increase the prison population enormously. If those principles, as they must, reflect on all serious offences, the prison population will become so vast that it cannot be contained.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has said very clearly that he feels—and this is the Government's view—that prison is a course of last resort. Noble Lords will know that in the Criminal Justice Bill we have produced a menu of different sentences—a mixture of community sentences together with prison sentences—which the whole House very much welcomed. It is not the Government's view that the proposals contained in the Criminal Justice Bill should increase the prison population enormously, as the noble and learned Lord seeks to assert.

Hallmarking
3.17 p.m.
Lord Henley Lord Henley asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any plans to change the current system of hallmarking of precious metals.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, the Government have no plans to change the current system of hallmarking precious metals. The Consumer Minister, Melanie Johnson, announced on 12th June that the Government do not support plans to revive the draft EU directive on the marking of precious metals which, if implemented, would alter the system of hallmarking in the UK.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that partially helpful Answer. Would he agree that the current hallmarking system is one of the most effective and efficient systems of consumer protection available in this country? I should add that it is not modern, which the Government will no doubt hold against it.

961
Will the Minister go further when referring to proposed directives from the European Union and give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will do all they can to prevent any such directive coming into effect? I hope that the Government will ensure that we preserve our current system of hallmarking.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, we believe that the current system is very effective and efficient, and we will oppose the directive. I am sure that the House will be relieved to hear that this is a 700 year-old institution that we believe has worked very well for 700 years and will continue to support.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, is the Minister aware that his reply to the noble Lord's question will be greeted with joy and relief in the city of Birmingham where, around 1780, that inventive industrial genius Matthew Bolton and others got together to found the Birmingham Assay Office and to give it its anchor assay mark, taking the name from the pub wherein they met? I urge the Minister to be absolutely resolute with those in Brussels who want to interfere with a system that is a guarantee of high-quality manufactured goods in Birmingham and elsewhere.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am very glad if any of my announcements are greeted with joy and relief and I do not care on what basis that occurs.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, does the Minister recognise that he has the unanimous support of all sides in your Lordships' House and of all parties in another place on this issue? Is he prepared to go further than his Answer to the noble Lord, Lord Henley, and confirm that there is no chance whatever of the directive taking effect in a form that we would not wish to see?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the chances of success for the directive do not look promising but we should be realistic in recognising that the position in Europe has changed since 1996. Fewer countries now operate mandatory third party marking regimes. We shall, however, oppose the directive being introduced.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, the Minister said initially that the Government had no plans regarding the directive. Subsequently he said that the Government would not support it and then that they would vigorously oppose it. In view of the question that has just been asked and given that this is a matter of majority voting and that our hallmark indicates that our products are better than those produced anywhere else—and we want to keep it that way—will the Government not only vigorously oppose the directive but also make it their business to try to get all the other countries in Europe to vote our way to prevent our being defeated on this very serious matter?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, we were part of the blocking minority when the directive was last
962
discussed in 1996. We intend to try to do the same on the next occasion it is discussed. I simply pointed out to the House that the position had changed since 1996 and that it might be more difficult to try to block the measure. But as a whole our view is still that the directive's chances of success are very small.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I declare an interest as my husband is a liveryman of the Goldsmiths' Company. Is the Minister aware that tens of thousands of substandard articles have to be destroyed every year by assay offices here and that UK hallmarking offers great protection to members of the public, many of whom are totally unaware of the fact?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, as I said, the present system works well and instils great confidence in consumers. Our objection to the proposed directive is that we do not consider that it would instil that confidence in consumers which is so important in this market.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, surely this is a perfect example of where subsidiarity should prevent such attempts by Brussels?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, that may be the noble Lord's view but it is not the constitutional view on the matter.

Scottish and Welsh Affairs: Ministerial Responsibility
3.22 p.m.
Lord Roberts of Conwy Lord Roberts of Conwy asked Her Majesty's Government:
Which United Kingdom ministerial office holder will have overall responsibility for Scottish and Welsh affairs.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as my right honourable friend the Prime Minister made clear in his Statement in another place yesterday, the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales continue to represent Scottish and Welsh issues in Cabinet and account on them to the House of Commons. They are assisted by the Scotland and Wales Offices which continue as distinct entities in my department.
I am responsible for the overall devolution settlements and overall government policy on devolution previously with the Deputy Prime Minister, including the Memorandum of Understanding, the Joint Ministerial Committee and the British-Irish Council.
The team of officials responsible for co-ordinating devolution issues has moved from the ODPM to my department, reporting to me.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, I congratulate the noble and learned Lord on his novel office of Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs which has, as he indicated, now absorbed the Wales and

963
Scotland Offices. Can he confirm that he has the ultimate authority to decide policy directions in Scotland and Wales and that he can override the part-time territorial Secretaries of State if needs be?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his kind congratulations. He is wrong; I do not have the ability to override the Secretaries of State for Wales and Scotland. Not one part of their powers has been transferred to my department. All that has happened is that their officials have moved there because they share an office with another department. If another Secretary of State took over who had a different department, it would be sensible for the officials to have a home in which they stayed.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord will be aware that one of the happenings which underpin the establishment of the Church of Scotland is that the Moderator of the Church of Scotland comes every year on, as it were, a state visit to London. He visits Parliament and he preaches in the crypt. He also attends an event at Dover House, the Scotland Office, for Scottish parliamentarians. Will the noble and learned Lord tell the House when that next happens who will receive him and where—above all, where?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, that is entirely a matter for the Secretary of State for Scotland.
Lord Carlile of Berriew: My Lords, in joining in the congratulations to the noble and learned Lord may I express the hope that he will soon visit Wales so that he will understand the more readily what the constitutional desires and aspirations of the people of Wales are? Will he confirm that the person who answered the telephone in the Wales Office on Monday and said that it was business as usual was absolutely right? If so, will the noble and learned Lord also confirm that his department will not take upon itself the power to reduce the number of Members of another place who represent Wales but will leave that firmly as a matter for the Boundary Commission for Wales?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for his kind invitation to Wales. I can confirm that the man in the Wales Office who answered the telephone and said that it was business as usual so far as the Secretary of State was concerned was absolutely correct. As regards the devolution settlement, we have no plans to change it.
Lord Elis-Thomas: My Lords, I join in congratulating the final Lord Chancellor on his appointment. I remind him of the good times we had together in this House during the passage of the Government of Wales Act. Can the noble and learned Lord confirm without shadow of doubt that the Leader of the House of Commons will be granted leave of absence to attend the National Assembly for Wales in order to carry out his statutory duties under that Act?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I well remember the good times we had together and thank the noble
964
Lord for reminding the House of them. I also thank him for his congratulations. Of course, the Secretary of State for Wales will attend to all his statutory duties in the National Assembly.
Baroness Gale: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that the devolution settlement for Wales has bedded down well and that in the second term it was inevitable that some changes would be made? Does my noble and learned friend further agree that one of the great successes of the Welsh Assembly, following the elections on 2nd May, was the election of 50 per cent women to it? It is the only legislature in the world that has a majority of women in the Cabinet. It is an excellent model which should be copied in Westminster and in all the legislatures of the world.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend as regards how well devolution has worked in Wales. I perhaps would not go quite so far as she did in saying that every single legislature in the world should copy the Welsh Assembly hut I entirely agree with her as regards the success of devolution in Wales. One of the consequences of that devolution is that much more is done in Cardiff than was previously done in London. It was necessary to recognise that in the sensible arrangements made by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister last Thursday.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, will the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs take this opportunity to clear up some confusion? Will he confirm whether or not the First Minister in Scotland was consulted about these arrangements, and whether he agreed to them? Will he also confirm that the first proposal that was put to the First Minister was that the Secretary of State for Scotland should reside in him and not in the Secretary of State for Transport?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the proposals were discussed with the First Minister and he is perfectly happy with the arrangements.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor help me in my puzzlement? Are the civil servants that remain in the Scotland Office and the civil servants that remain in the Wales Office directly responsible to the respective Secretaries of State and are they not responsible to the noble and learned Lord? Can he tell me what arrangements the Government have made if the Secretary of State for Transport, for instance, and the First Minister in Scotland have opposing points of view about an important matter of public policy? How will those matters be resolved?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the civil servants in the Wales Office and Scotland Office report directly to their respective Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales. Any issue between the First Minister for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Transport will be dealt with in the ordinary way.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, can my noble and learned friend advise me of the prime purpose and the

965
major advantages of merging the two offices with his, in view of the fact that he does not have overall responsibility?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the two offices have not been merged with mine. The Secretary of State for Wales continues to exist and the Secretary of State for Scotland continues to exist. All that has happened is that officials have been placed in the Constitutional Affairs Department because that is a sensible administrative arrangement, recognising that the Secretaries of State for Wales and Scotland will in the future have other departmental responsibilities.
Lord Renton: My Lords, will the noble and learned Lord now kindly answer the question put to him by my noble friend Lord Forsyth of Drumlean?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I believe that I have already answered that question.

Licensing Bill [H.L.]
3.31 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now further considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now further considered.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Licensing Bill [H.L.]

  COMMONS AMENDMENT
  63 Schedule 1, page 113, line 3, leave out paragraph 14
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 63. By this amendment the Commons deleted paragraph 14 in Part 2 of Schedule 1 which had been accepted by this House and which would have exempted,
  "any entertainment or entertainment facilities in the premises of an educational establishment for the purposes directly connected to the activities of the establishment".
  The Government were not without some sympathy for the noble Lords who originally proposed this exemption. The focus of their argument, expressed in this House, was to ensure that our schools are not burdened with the administrative requirements of the Bill and the associated costs. But I am afraid that the Government foresaw problems with the exemption, both in its scope and in relation to some points of principle.
  On the scope of the exemption, paragraph 14 used the expression "educational establishment" without offering any more detailed definition. The term "educational institution" is more commonly found in statute, is used in the current draft of the Bill and is defined in Clause 17(3). "Educational institution" is defined in the Bill as,
  966
  "a school or an institution within the further or higher education sector, within the meaning of Section 4 of the Education Act 1996"
  Or,
  "a college (including any institution in the nature of a college), school, hall or other institution of a university, in circumstances where the university receives financial support under Section 65 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992".
  That gives us a better understanding of what would have been exempted in Schedule 1 to the Bill had paragraph 14 been retained. The exemption relates not only to school plays and concerts and other similar activities; it would also encompass dances, raves, rock concerts and major festivals held by universities. colleges and places of further education for their students and others. It can also be argued that it may go so far as to include students' unions. Students' unions commonly run and control night-clubs as serious and major businesses. Their premises give rise to as many anxieties about alcohol consumption, disorder, noise, nuisance and drugs as any similar commercial venture in our town and city centres. It would be reckless in the extreme to exempt such premises from the provisions of the Bill. For that reason alone, the House should not allow this exemption to stand in the Bill.
  On points of principle, entertainment is regulated under the Bill in order to achieve the licensing objectives, not least that concerning public safety. The establishments that would be at least partially exempted by this amendment host a number of occasions that the public are able to attend. Schools stage commercial concerts and plays. The fact that those events take place at schools does not mean that the public attending them should not be protected or expect to be protected. As many of those attending may be children, it is even more important that they should be properly protected. I should point out that the necessary expertise in safety matters associated with that kind of entertainment may be more limited than in professional venues. Licensing admits professional opinion and advice.
  Perhaps I may also remind the House that the reforms contained in the Bill are designed to establish a level playing field for charitable and community bodies with a light-touch, non-bureaucratic system. To exclude some premises entirely from that, while including others, would not achieve that aim.
  As I said in opening, the Government were not wholly out of sympathy with those who originally proposed this exemption. At Second Reading of the Bill, the Secretary of State announced the Government's intention to place schools and sixth form colleges on an equal footing with church halls, village halls and community venues by waiving the fees in relation to the provision by them of regulated entertainment. That would protect schools and sixth form colleges from the costs associated with the system while preserving the safety, crime and disorder, protection of children from harm and nuisance controls that would protect the public and local residents.

  967
  Let me remind the House of the current regulatory framework and remove some of the myths that were prevalent when the Bill was previously before it. Under the existing legislation, school concerts are licensable activities, although outside London a reduction or waiver of fees can be granted by a local authority if it considers that the entertainment is of educational value. There is therefore no current exemption from the requirement for licensing.
  First, the Bill proposes that the teaching of music, including the performance of musical pieces in school by teachers and pupils for other teachers, is not a licensable activity. Those are private activities to which the public are not admitted. They are not undertaken for a charge or with a view to profit, nor on several fronts do they qualify as regulated entertainment.
  Secondly, school concerts or plays for teachers, pupils, parents, guests and invited friends are not licensable activities unless a charge is made that is intended to generate profit. If the charge is intended to do no more than cover the school's costs for the provision of the entertainment, no profit would be intended. Again the qualifying conditions would not be met.
  Thirdly, if a school concert or play of that kind is staged for those whom I have just mentioned and they are invited to make a donation to the school but are not obliged to do so, the event would not be licensable. If only voluntary donations are sought, no charge is being made.
  Therefore, many school activities of the kind that we have been debating already fall outside the scope of regulated entertainment. Under the Bill, the key is that either the entertainment is intended to be provided for the public—in other words, anyone, whether or not connected with the school, can attend—or a charge is made and profit is the aim of the performance.
  We license commercial activities because the profit motive may override immediate concerns for public safety and public nuisance, but also those relating to the other licensing objectives, and to ensure a proper, professional approach to those important issues. We license places open to the public because every citizen should know that his or her interests will be safeguarded whether the building is a school, community hall or major commercial concert hall.
  If a school wants to go down the route of staging public concerts or activities that generate income, the licensing system is not too burdensome. If other amendments made in another place are accepted by your Lordships, temporary event notices, which have been accepted, would cover events lasting up to four days for fewer than 500 people. Twelve events—not five as originally proposed—could be staged each year on the same premises, provided that the premises were not used for that kind of activity for more than a total of 15 days in any year. If a school is more ambitious than that and plans larger or more regular events, it would need to obtain a premises licence, but central government would absorb the fees and charges.
  968
  I can give an undertaking that we shall also consider developing the guidance for licensing authorities to emphasise that over-burdensome and disproportionate conditions should not be imposed on schools beyond those absolutely necessary to ensure the safety of performers and audiences alike and to address the other licensing objectives. We want to ensure that music and other cultural activities thrive in our schools and sixth form colleges, and nothing in the Bill would deny that intention.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 63.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
  63A Baroness Buscombe rose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 63, leave out "agree" and insert "disagree".
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, it is important to move this amendment to set the record straight. The Bill is supposed to be deregulatory and light touch. We believe that our amendment, as originally drafted—it received great cross-party support in your Lordships' House but, sadly, was defeated in another place—presented a great opportunity to show that the Bill would in practice be deregulatory. We believe that schools are already saddled with so much bureaucracy, and this was an opportunity to remove just one small part of it.
  A number of arguments, some of them mentioned by the Minister, have been used against the amendment. "Educational establishment" or "educational institution" means a school or institution in the further or higher education sector within the meaning of the Education Act 1996, or a college, school, hall or other institution of a university. Therefore it is not just about school plays but also dances, raves, rock concerts and major festivals that are held by universities, colleges and places of further education for their students.
  There has also been anxiety about alcohol consumption, disorder and noise nuisance. We have been assured that,
  "school concerts or plays for teachers, pupils, parents, guests and invited friends are not licensable activities unless a charge is made that is intended to generate profit".—[0flicial Report, 24/2/03; col. 41.]
  That may be the case but it creates huge confusion.
  In the Commons it was also suggested that there was a possibility that the category would fall into the "no fee" category. We appreciate that. However, I want to put the record straight. Public safety is already highly regulated in any educational establishment to protect and provide for the well-being of the students or children themselves. All school buildings or university buildings need to be health and safety checked.
  As to public nuisance, legislation already allows for complaints to be made on the grounds of excessive noise. The essence of our argument is that we are not talking about alcohol consumption and it is misleading for anyone to interpret the amendment in that light. Our amendment talks about the provision of entertainment or entertainment facilities in the premises of an educational establishment for the purposes directly

  969
  connected to the activities of the establishment. That is not about raves, major rock festivals or dances, which would, in a student establishment, involve by their very nature the consumption of alcohol. In that case, yes, it is right that it should be a licensable activity. We are concerned in this regard with, for example, plays, small musical concerts for the general public or a band playing in the school grounds at an open day. Why are the Government so against this? These are not activities that need excessive regulation.
  Educational establishments are run by responsible authorities: in the case of schools, by school governors and head teachers, and, in the case of universities, by rectors, proctors and governing bodies. They are unlikely to abuse the freedom which exemption from licensing would give them. Would they permit an unregulated "rave" with loud music that was likely to cause a public nuisance and to involve people who were drunk, disorderly, using drugs and potentially a danger to themselves and others? I think that the answer to that is clearly "No". If that is what the Government are afraid of and if this is why they reject our amendment I believe that their fears are unfounded, misguided and unrealistic. I beg to move.
  Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 63, leave out "agree" and insert "disagree".—(Baroness Buscombe.)
  Lord Redesdale: My Lords, we on these Benches welcome the moves that the Government have made to remove these provisions from such events. We have only one question, which we hope the Minister will answer. How much time and effort will be required by teaching staff at schools to meet their obligations, and will that be reviewed at some time? The Minister says that the approach is not intended to be overly burdensome in financial terms and with regard to teachers' time. Health and safety must be of paramount importance. It would be helpful if the Minister said whether the Secretary of State will review any burden in relation to agreeing to the licences. Many teachers may find that to be such a burden that they do not undertake school plays, which are so important to educational life.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I can say without any hesitation to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, that the burden on teachers will be minimal. A premises licence involves a one-off process and once it has been granted, it will stay in force unless there are any relevant changes to the circumstances in the school. I suppose that if the school burnt down and was rebuilt differently, there would need to be a new premises licence. However, apart from that, a one-off occasion is involved. If there were any problems, I am sure that the Secretary of State for Education and Skills and the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport would put their heads together and see whether there were any burdens that could be removed. There need be no problem in that regard.
  970
  The noble Baroness, Lady Buscombe, appears to think that this is a new burden on schools. In Greater London, licensing is obligatory and in outer London it is required by local authorities unless they waive it. Of course I understand what she says about schools and sixth-form colleges, which is why we waived the fees. However, her amendment simply disagreeing with the Commons amendment would not answer any of the problems that I raised with regard to, for example, universities, higher education institutions and students' unions.
  Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. I was suggesting not that this would be a new burden but that it was a grand opportunity for the Government to be seen to be deregulatory by removing the burden from schools, which are already highly regulated. They can barely breathe without coming across bureaucracy. I am sorry that the Minister will not accept that I am concentrating on the provision of entertainment facilities alone. I very much wanted to have the opportunity to put the record straight. This is not Her Majesty's Opposition asking for raves, major rock festivals, dances and the students' union bar to be regarded as activities that are not licensable; quite the opposite. The purpose of our amendment throughout our scrutiny of the Bill has always been to concentrate on simple school activities where alcohol is not consumed.
  I am grateful to the Minister for his undertaking to ensure that local authorities will not be able to apply too burdensome conditions beyond those that are absolutely necessary to ensure safety. As I said when I moved the amendment, we are grateful that the Government have seen fit, thanks to pressure in your Lordships' House, to ensure that the licence condition will be "nil fee" based.
  Finally, notwithstanding the fact that I remain delighted that churches have been exempted from the need to have a licence, I continue to question the Bill's consistency; it is questionable why educational establishments and other similar bodies should not also be exempt. I know that the Government expressed the argument that it brings churches in Greater London into line with the situation outside London in that churches outside London were originally exempted from licences. In a sense, that still remains an inconsistency in the Bill. The Select Committee on Human Rights recently referred to that inconsistency and the fact that one type of secular activity is treated in a different way to a religious activity. I am grateful to the Minister for his undertaking. Our concern is to keep burdens to a minimum for our schools. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment No. 63A, by leave, withdrawn.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  64 Schedule 4, page 118, line 2, at end insert—
  " An offence under section 1 of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 (c. 29) (false trade description of goods) in circumstances where the goods in question are or include alcohol."
  65 Page 119, line 7, at end insert—
  "( ) section 107(3) (infringement of copyright by public performance of work etc.);"
  66 Page 119, line 19, at end insert—
  " An offence under either of the following provisions of the Food Safety Act 1990 (c. 16) in circumstances where the food in question is or includes alcohol—

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

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

  67 Page 119, line 19, at end insert—
  " An offence under section 92(1) or (2) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 (c. 26) (unauthorised use of trade mark. etc. in relation to goods) in circumstances where the goods in question are or include alcohol."
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that this House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 64 to 67. Under the Bill, applicants for personal licences will be required to reveal whether they have been convicted of any relevant offences. Relevant offences are those listed in Schedule 4 to the Bill and include offences under the Bill itself. I have a list of the offences, but I shall spare the House the list, since it is in the Bill.
  Under Clause 118, if an applicant has been convicted of one of these relevant offences then the licensing authority will be required to notify the chief officer of police and, if he is satisfied that the granting of the licence would undermine the crime prevention objective, he must issue an objection notice. This would lead to a hearing, unless all parties agreed that a hearing was unnecessary, at which the licensing authority could decide to grant the application, or reject it if it believed that this was necessary to promote the crime prevention objective. Applicants for personal licences will only be required to reveal unspent convictions. When any personal licence holder is convicted of a relevant offence by a court in England and Wales, it will be open to the court to order the forfeiture of the licence or its suspension for up to six months. In deciding whether to order such a forfeiture or suspension. the court will be able to take account of any previous conviction of the licence holder for a relevant offence.
  Amendments Nos. 64, 66 and 67 would make the substitution of alternative brands of alcohol, including spirits, one of the relevant offences listed in Schedule 4 to the Bill. "Spirits substitution" as it is commonly known in the industry covers such acts as "tipping" by licensees of alternative cheaper, sometimes bootlegged spirits into branded spirits bottles for resale to the consumer in on-licensed premises. The arguments in support of adding these offences include the fact that it probably costs consumers £20 million a year; that it costs the Exchequer £1 million to £5 million a year; and public health because counterfeit spirits could give rise to serious risks to health. Substitution and counterfeit legislation is enforced by trading standards and environmental health authorities and is prosecuted without apparent consistency under the Food Safety Act 1990, the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 and the Trade Marks Act 1994.
  972
  The penalty imposed on successful conviction is usually a fine of between £50 and £1,000. Currently a conviction has no impact on the justices' licence to sell alcohol that is held by the offender. There is no official communication between the prosecuting court and the licensing justices. By including these offences as relevant offences the court will now be able to order the forfeiture or suspension for up to six months of the personal licence and will be required to notify the licensing authority.
  Amendment No. 65 would make the public performance of a work, knowing that it will infringe copyright, a relevant offence in the list of offences in Schedule 4. During Report stage in this House and in response to concerns, the Government tabled amendments to the Bill which were accepted, and now make certain offences under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 relevant offences for the purpose of the Bill. The offences that were included were chosen to deal with the particular concerns which industry had expressed. However, following further representations from the music industry, the Government believe that the list of copyright offences omits one important provision; namely, Section 107(3) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, which provides that:
  "Where copyright is infringed (otherwise than by reception of a broadcast or cable programme)—(a) by the public performance of a literary, dramatic or musical work. or lb) by the playing or showing in public of a sound recording or a film, any person who caused the work to be so performed, played or shown is guilty of an offence if he knew or had reason to believe that copyright would be infringed".
  This is sometimes considered as a possible cause of action by trading standards officers and the Performing Rights Society—for example, against a pub operator who is knowingly using a juke box supplied and filled with counterfeit CDs. It would help the film industry in actions against pub operators showing pirate films. This would make it clear to the offenders that premises licensed for the provision of regulated entertainment or the supply of alcohol are not easy targets for activities that infringe copyright or performer's rights.
  The Government have listened to the industry. Amendment No. 65 underlines how seriously we take the issue of copyright infringement. It will ensure that those who wish to be personal licence holders under the new regime will be subject to scrutiny as a result of committing these offences and should ensure that they are deterred from doing so.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 64 to 67.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
  Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, I rise to support the amendments, particularly those relating to copyright.
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  68 Schedule 6, page 140, line 14, leave out "to 133" and insert
  "and 132"
  69 Page 140, line 14, at end insert—
  "In section 133 (miscellaneous provision about new towns), in subsection (1), omit the following definitions—

  (a) "development corporation",

  (b) "the 1964 Act".

  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 68 and 69.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 68 and 69.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  70 Schedule 7, page 150, line 25, at end insert—

  "Common Informers

  In the Schedule—

  Act 1951 (c. 39)

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

  71 Page 150, leave out line 41 and insert—

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

  72 Page 151, line 45, at end insert—

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

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

  73 Page 152, line 28, leave out "to 133" and insert "and 132"
  74 Page 152, line 28, at end insert—

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

  75 Page 152, line 37, leave out "29" and insert "29(a)(i)"
  76 Page 153, line 9, at beginning of second column, insert—

  "Section 3(1A)."

  77 Page 153, line 9, at end insert—

  "Sections 17 and 18."

  78 Page 153, line 12, leave out "paragraph 15" and insert
  "paragraphs 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 14, 15 and 16(a) and the word "and" immediately following it."
  79 Page 153, line 15, leave out ", paragraphs 1(1) and 2 to 5" and insert—

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

  80 Page 155, leave out line 6
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 70 to 80.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 70 to 80.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  COMMONS AMENDMENTS
  81 Schedule 8, page 158, line 6, leave out ", and to comply with the requirements of sub-paragraph (7),"
  82 Page 160, line 13, after "20" insert ", (Mandatory condition in licences: exhibition of films)"
  83 Page 160, line 19, after "20" insert ", (Mandatory condition in licences: exhibition of films)"
  84 Page 164, line 25, leave out ", and to comply with the
  974
  requirements of sub-paragraph (6),"
  85 Page 166, line 9, leave out "section 73 (prohibited conditions in club premises certificates) applies" and insert "sections (Certificate authorising supply of alcohol for consumption off the premises), (Mandatory condition in certificates: exhibition of films) and 73 apply"
  86 Page 166, line 14, leave out "section" and insert "sections (Certificate authorising supply of alcohol for consumption off the premises), (Mandatory condition in certificates: exhibition of films) and"
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lord, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 81 to 86.
  Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 81 to 86.—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

Railways and Transport Safety Bill
3.56 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Meaning of "railway" and "railway property"]:
Lord Faulkner of Worcester Lord Faulkner of Worcester moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, leave out lines 6 and 7 and insert—
""railway" means a system of transport employing parallel rails which—

(a) provide support and guidance of vehicles carried on flanged wheels, and

(b) form a track which either is of a gauge of at least 350 millimetres or crosses a carriageway (whether or not on the same level),

but does not include a tramway;
"street" means any, or any combination, of the following—

(a) a highway within the meaning of section 328 of the Highways Act 1980 (c. 66) (interpretation),

(b) a bridleway, carriageway, cycle track, footpath or footway as respectively defined in section 329(1) of that Act (further provisions as to interpretation),

(c) land on the verge of a carriageway or between two carriageways,

(d) land laid out as a way whether it is for the time being formed as a way or not, and

(e) any other place to which the public has access (including access only on making payment);

"tramway" means a system of transport used wholly or mainly for the carriage of passengers employing rails which provide support and guidance for vehicles carried on flanged wheels and in respect of which—

(a) the rails are laid wholly or partly along a street, and

(b) over the whole or part of the system the permitted speed of vehicles operating on it is limited to that which enables the driver of any such vehicle to stop it within the distance he can see to be clear ahead;"

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I apologise for starting what must appear to be a technical and complicated amendment. However, it is important because it deals with the definition of a tramway-which is contained in Clause 1.

975
As the Explanatory Notes to the Bill makes clear, for the purposes of Part 1, the definitions of both "railway" and "tramway" adopt those contained in Section 67 of the Transport and Works Act 1992. Unfortunately, the definition in that Act is flawed, and has remained flawed since it went through Parliament in a hurry at the end of the Parliament when the election was called. The flaws were exposed in a working party established by the Chartered Institute of Transport. The Health and Safety Executive was likewise unhappy with the definition and has put forward its own alternative.
What is the problem with the present definition of "tramway"? As I have explained, Section 67 of the Transport and Works Act defines both "railway" and "tramway". It does so in a way which stipulates that if a rail transport system is not a tramway, then it must be a railway. So the definition of a tramway also has implications for the definition of railway. The definition of "tramway" in the 1992 Act is as follows:
"'tramway' means a system of transport used wholly or mainly for the carriage of passengers and employing parallel rails which…provide support and guidance for vehicles carried on flanged wheels, and…are laid wholly or mainly along a street or in any other place to which the public has access only on making a payment".
Your Lordships should note that this definition contains the phrase,
"wholly or mainly along a street".
Not only does this allow vehicles of the same type, and operated in the same manner, to be classed as either a railway vehicle or a tramway vehicle, depending on the proportion of street-running that a particular system may possess, it can also mean that a system which at one stage may fall within the definition of tramway may later, if extended, fall within the definition of railway, or vice versa, according to whether the extended system changes the balance of the proportion of street running. As railways and tramways have different legal regimes, the regime governing a particular system may therefore change overnight, perhaps with the possibility of further fluctuations at a later date. This is surely bizarre and needs to be corrected.
If the decision is not taken to correct the definition in the current Bill, the present flawed definition will become even more deeply embedded in legislation, leading to ever-increasing problems. The Bill gives some examples. Graphic illustrations can be found in Clauses 14(2) and 76(2), which provide that the application to tramways of Parts 1 and 3—they respectively deal with the setting-up of the rail accident investigation branch and reconstituting the British Transport Police—are to be disregarded in relation to Scotland. There is therefore the possibility that the territorial application of the Bill in respect of railways and tramways may hover back and forth between England and Scotland. That is surely a unique and unacceptable state of affairs.
When the Bill was debated in another place, the Minister there suggested that the issue did not arise, as in Scotland there are no tramways. However, well-developed proposals are afoot for tramways in both Edinburgh and Glasgow. so the issue is a real one.
976
It is for those reasons that the Confederation of Passenger Transport, with the support of the Passenger Transport Executive Group and Her Majesty's Railway Inspectorate, has drawn up the revised definition that I have tabled. That definition would take account of two essential features that every tramway must possess: elements of street running and of line-of-sight operation. That latter characteristic was emphasised in Committee by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie. But the important change would be that the definition would no longer depend for its application on the proportion of street running involved, so overcoming the problems which I have outlined associated with the current definition.
The definition of "railway" in my amendment offers no change from the definition in the Transport and Works Act. It has been incorporated here simply because the removal of the existing wording would otherwise leave the Bill with no definition of a railway. A definition of "street" has been introduced simply because that term is integral to the concept of tramway as defined in the amendment. I beg to move.
4 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, my Amendment No. 3 is grouped with the amendment. Noble Lords owe a debt of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, for tabling the amendment, because it certainly clears up some of the difficulties that we discussed at an earlier stage. My particular concern relating to tramways was about the rail accident investigation branch. I asked the Minister at a previous stage whether it would investigate tramways, because under the Bill as it stands it seemed to me that that would not be the case. He said that if there were no rail implications the inspector would not do so, and that if the tram were running on the road, as it were, it might be a matter for the police.
That response seemed somewhat unacceptable, as a tram runs on the road for most of the time—that is the definition of it; it also runs on rails. If it did not, it would be a powered bus. For a short part of a journey, a tram might run through areas where cars do not go, but that is not so for 99 per cent of the time. It seems important that the RAIB should be able to investigate any incident or accident.
The Minister was kind enough to write to me and say that, under Clause 7(1)(b), the RAIB can,
"decide on a case by case basis whether or not to investigate any accident, serious or non-serious, or incident on a tramway"—
he then added:
"The police and the RAIB will work closely to ensure that the appropriate body investigates".
We all know that sometimes government bodies work closely together, and sometimes they tend to work rather far apart. My concern is that there should be adequate provision for ensuring that there is always an investigation and a mechanism for deciding who should make that decision. That is why I tabled my amendment.

977
The Government could help me in one way; namely, if there were a system of automatic notification to the RAIB in the event of an incident or accident. In those circumstances, the RAIB would at least be aware of the facts and it could decide whether it was an appropriate matter for the branch or the police to investigate. What worries me is the thought of an accident involving a tram—perhaps if it hit a car or a bicycle—where a policeman comes along, scratching his head and wondering whether it is for him, or the RAIB, to investigate.
There needs to be some clear mechanism, because, as I have said before, there are a number of overlapping bodies in the Bill. There are also areas where something might slip between the two organisations. That is what I am anxious to avoid. I hope that the Minister can help me. I certainly support the principle of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I would like very much to support the amendment. My noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester has achieved a great success with it and all the work that has gone into it. I congratulate him. There are certain railways where trams and heavy rail, be it passenger or freight, run on the same line. I imagine that that is well covered by the amendment. His concept of what would happen if a tramway were built across the frontier between England and Scotland—in Carlisle or on the east coast—is interesting. It also demonstrates, if we need any further evidence, that the transport responsibilities in Scotland and the lack of a transport and works Act probably need to be looked at in the future.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Faulkner on the diligence with which he has drafted a wholly new definition of "tramway". The amendment would define tramways in a different way from the existing legislation; namely, the Transport and Works Act 1992. I am certainly prepared to talk with him about his definition before Third Reading, but I have huge problems with accepting it now.
The major problem is that "tramway" occurs in dozens of pieces of primary and secondary legislation. If we were to amend it here, we would have different definitions of tramway on the statute book. That would be confusing, or even dangerous. We would not consider changing the definition of tramway without giving proper thought to the desirability of the change and the consequences to other pieces of legislation. We certainly could not do it at this stage of the Bill.
It is by no means clear what the effect of the change would be and, if there were an effect, how significant it would be. We are not aware of any practical difficulties arising in the 11 years that the definition has been in use. I have said that I am willing to talk to my noble friend Lord Faulkner about it. I hope that he will be prepared to tell me what the effect of the change would
978
be—we cannot work it out—and whether there is likely to be any practical effect. We do not cover Scotland because there are no tramways in Scotland.
I am grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, for the way in which he spoke to Amendment No. 3. He wanted a particular assurance that all tramway accidents would be notified to the RAIB. I can give him that assurance; we will do that in regulation.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I am most grateful for the support expressed by the noble Viscount and by my noble friend Lord Berkeley for my amendment. I should have said earlier that I have a great deal of sympathy with what the noble Viscount seeks to do in Amendment No. 3.
I appreciate what my noble friend said in response. I look forward to having a discussion with him. I shall bring in people cleverer than myself who will help him and his officials to sort out the implications of redefining a tramway. Of course, Clause 1(2) gives the Secretary of State the power to make regulations to amend the clause. Rather than attempt to add a prescriptive amendment on "tramway" to the Bill, the Secretary of State might be prepared to use that power. On the basis that we are going to continue our discussions, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 [Investigations]:
Viscount Astormoved Amendment No. 2:
Page 3, line 12, at end insert—
"(1A) The Rail Accident Investigation Branch may investigate any railway situation which it judges to have the potential to cause an accident."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords. in Committee, my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith commented that my amendment was too widely drawn and suggested that he would have supported my amendment if it had referred to the potential to cause an accident rather than the potential for fatality or injury. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, said at that stage that the amendment was too broad in its scope. We subsequently took it away, and redrafted it to say:
"The Rail Accident Investigation Branch may investigate any railway situation which it judges to have the potential to cause an accident".
Therefore, there does not have to be an actual incident or accident for the RAIB to decide that something could cause danger. That is important, because while the rail accident investigation branch is responsible for investigating incidents, it is also, as the Minister said at Second Reading, responsible for safety overall. We do want to make sure that it has the power to investigate in the areas concerned. The Minister may tell me that it does, and that it is covered by another clause of the Bill. If he can give me that assurance, I should be happy to withdraw the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I can certainly give that assurance. Clause 2(4) says that regulations under subsection (2) making provision about what is to be treated as an incident may in particular include an event or omission which does not

979
cause damage or loss, but which might do so in different circumstances. That is the precise purpose of the amendment, and it is therefore unnecessary.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. That means that the rail accident investigation branch has the power and jurisdiction. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 3 not moved.]
Lord Bradshawmoved Amendment No, 4:
Page 3, line 18, at end insert "not later than twelve months following an accident"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment and several like it touch on the subject of whether the chief inspector of rail accidents is independent. We remain extremely concerned about that. That is not because the Government have any intention to make this person subservient to anyone else, but it is a fact that various legal processes can be used to delay the publication of a report on an accident. These are often employed at the instigation of insurance companies which are pursuing civil or criminal actions and believe that the information contained in the report may prejudice their case.
There is an overwhelming desire in the country to move, following any accident, to know its cause and to take remedial action straight away. If an airliner comes down and the Air Accident Investigation Branch finds metal fatigue or that something has gone wrong with the engine, a report is made within weeks and all airliners arc checked for that fault. I know that the report on the "Solway Harvester" ship was delayed, after investigations had ended, at the behest of both British and foreign lawyers who are behind insurance companies.
The purpose of the 13ill will be vitiated unless we insert a clause to say that a report will be published in a given period. My amendment specifies 12 months. I have been involved with many railway accidents, and the real cause was known in almost every one. All sorts of recommendations may be made afterwards—to modify signalling, change sightlines, improve training, and so on—but those are supplementary to the accident.
I ask the Minister to respond firmly on the issue of reports that are delayed again and again at the behest of some lawyer or other. I beg to move.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I support the amendment. I too have had several discussions with investigation boards and confidential reporters from marine industries. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, is correct: the fear of legal action often causes significant delays to the publication of these reports, which after all are there to find the causes of accidents in the public interest and to recommend means of preventing their reoccurrence.
980
A statutory duty on the inspector to publish his report within, say, 12 months, would provide tremendous strength with which to resist legal challenges. It is in the public interest that such a period should be stated. We can debate whether 12 months is right, but the principle is important. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, cited three-and-a-half years for the publication of the report on the "Solway Harvester"; accident reports must be published much more quickly, and the amendment is a good way of doing it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, all of the amendments on the railway accident investigation branch are helpful; they are intended to strengthen the powers of the branch, and to make sure that it does the work that the Government intend more effectively. I treat them all as friendly amendments. That is true of Amendments Nos. 6 and 7 on control of the premises, and of Amendment No. 5 on the protection of witnesses. I will not say it again.
Clause 7(4) contains an obligation on the branch to report to the Secretary of State on the completion of an investigation—not 12 months after. The amendment would impose a condition of 12 months after the accident or incident; we cannot handle that. It may be an extremely complex event; scientific tests may have to be carried out which take more than 12 months, and so on. It is better to get a full and detailed report after 14 months than a hurried and incomplete one before the year is up.
The obligation to produce a report on completion of an investigation is a sufficiently clear signal to the rail accident investigation branch that it must get a move on.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, will he clarify one thing? I accept his point that Clause 7(4) requires the branch to report to the Secretary of State on completion of the investigation. Does that mean that the Secretary of State will publish the report immediately? The amendment is really about the publication of the report rather than its submission to the Secretary of State.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Secretary of State will certainly publish it; whether he or she will wish to respond to the report before publishing it is another matter which does not need to be laid down in legislation.
As regards the 12-month point, we do propose to make regulations under Clause 9(2)(g) to specify that this should normally be within 12 months.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. In my experience, the cause of even the most complicated accidents, such as those at Southall and Ladbroke Grove, is known within two or three days.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, an interim report can be published.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, with respect, that is precisely my point. We can discuss this again before Third Reading. However, I am most anxious that if

981
possible we can do away with the legal impediments which mean that the work is completed, the investigation is done but some lawyer finds some method of getting it locked up either in this rail accident investigation branch cupboard or the Secretary of State's cupboard, whichever it is, thus preventing the public, who need to know, from learning what is happening because it happens to suit the claim of one insurance company as opposed to another that the facts are kept from us.
I am adamantly opposed to the convenience of insurance companies being put before the needs of the general public. That is the burden of what I say. I press the Minister at least to think hard about the matter if I do not press the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am not in a position to say more. I have said that we shall publish regulations to say that the period should normally be 12 months but we do not want to tie ourselves down in cases that we cannot yet anticipate. We have already given a firm commitment that these reports will be published.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I have listened to the Minister's comments. I shall think about what is said but I shall take advice on whether the issue should be pressed at Third Reading. It is a matter of grave concern to us. I hope that the Minister realises that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 [Investigator's powers]:
Lord Bradshawmoved Amendment No. 5:
Page 4, line 26, at end insert—
"( ) None of the information obtained under this section shall be divulged to any other party.
( ) On completion of any report by the Chief Inspector, all information used in its preparation shall be destroyed."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 5 is similar to the previous one and, again, is meant to be helpful. I am sorry to say that this again affects our friends in the legal profession. The basis of reporting to the rail accident investigation branch is that it will interview people without the evidence that people give being on the record from the point of view of a prosecution; that is, people may speak freely to the rail accident investigation branch. They are not under caution. Nothing they say can be produced in evidence in a court of law. I believe that that is more or less the basis on which the confidential reporting systems work.
However, I am concerned that again, subsequently, the names and addresses of people who have given evidence will get into the public domain through the legal processes and that people will not feel they are speaking in confidence to the chief inspector and therefore the system will fail.
982
The purpose of the two amendments is to strengthen the fact that the information is given in confidence and that the chief inspector may after completion of the report destroy the information that he or she has received. I beg to move.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, again I support the amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, and my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey said, it is designed to ensure that the accident investigation people have the best possible opportunity of coming up with a solution quickly. Having talked to people in the marine and air industries and in the same business, it is clear that the best information is obtained from meeting people who have been involved or seen anything very soon after an accident and who are confident that any information given will be in total confidence. By so doing, it is easier to get to the root cause of any accident or incident. Obviously, that is preferable before any other authority such as the police starts running around cautioning people.
I believe that the only way such confidence will be encouraged in the rail industry is if all the people in the industry know that anything they say will not be divulged to third parties and, as the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw said, not even their names and addresses are divulged. That is the purpose of the amendment.
For the record, this does not apply to material things such as bolts because after the accident and investigation people have carried out an inspection, it may well be that in certain circumstances the police or the Health and Safety Executive might want to inspect them, which would be reasonable.
The way in which the RAIB will work effectively is by listening to what people say in confidence about their first impressions. If other authorities such as the police and the HSE feel they need to interview people they can do so in the usual way completely separately under caution with lawyers, or whatever.
This is an important principle. No doubt my noble friend the Minister will tell the House whether the wording is correct. This is a difficult subject, but the amendment is an attempt to surround the RAIB with as much access to confidential information as possible without it leaking out.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am sympathetic to part of the amendment tabled by the noble Lord. Lord Bradshaw, but I have some questions for the Minister. Following an accident which the RAIB investigates, for example, there could then be some form of prosecution. At that stage, not unreasonably, the prosecuting authorities should perhaps know who had given evidence. My question is: what has happened in the past in terms of aircraft, for example, and the Civil Aviation Authority in such situations?
I support the noble Lords, Lord Bradshaw and Lord Berkeley, in the principle that a person giving evidence needs to be free to do so without constraint; otherwise we would not get to the bottom of such matters. That is important. I am not sure about the

983
names remaining merely confidential; perhaps they should be destroyed. If there is some form of ongoing prosecution, such information could be very important to the prosecution or to the defence. I pose that question to the Minister, but I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, raises an important point.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, too, support the amendment. It proposes a twin-track approach but I think it would be valuable for railway staff to be able to speak in confidence to the rail investigator and subsequently speak on another occasion to either the British Transport Police or to the Health and Safety Executive.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I sympathise with the concerns which give rise to the amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, is right that there are two kinds of evidence. There is technical and hard evidence, such as the condition of bolts, or brake readings and suchlike. There is no reason why that should not be shared with the police and the Health and Safety Executive or anyone else who has a legitimate concern. The second kind of evidence consists of witness statements. It is enormously important that witness statements should be made freely on the express assurance that they will not he shared.
The purpose of all that is to prevent rail accidents and to learn safety lessons. Witnesses must know that they can speak freely and frankly to RAIB inspectors, even in the stressful circumstances in the immediate aftermath of a crash without having to worry that something they say may be used against them. Witness statements given to the RAIB will not be disclosed to any other person by the RAIB—here comes the catch— unless it is ordered to do so by the court. That is an issue that we simply cannot move on because we are not in control of the courts. If the courts decide, for whatever reason—if there is any query about whether the reason is good that could be the subject of an appeal— that the source must be disclosed, then it must be disclosed. We cannot prohibit that by passing legislation.
However, the court will take into account—I believe this is the assurance that the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, seeks—the general public interest in disclosure, against that of the RAIB regime and the Human Rights Act. But in deciding whether to order disclosure the court will consider the adverse consequences that an order to disclose would have on people's confidence in the confidentiality of the RAIB regime. We cannot accept the amendment in the form in which it is proposed.
Similarly I do not believe that it is appropriate that the RAIB should be required to destroy information given to it or used in preparing its reports. At the very least, investigations may need to be re-opened under the provisions of Clause 7(8)
As to the comparisons with the Air Accidents Investigation Branch and the Marine Accident Investigation Branch, my understanding is that the RAIB is not required to disclose names, but in practice
984
I believe that it does. I hope that answers the points made. For the purposes of the regime we are determined to maintain as much confidentiality as possible, but there is a point beyond which we cannot go.
4.30 p.m.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, before the Minister sits down and before the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, responds, I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, as I forgot to ask him one question. In the event of a public inquiry, which we have had into rail accidents, does the issue of the evidence being disclosed at such an inquiry have to go before a court? Does the noble Lord know how the matter would work in that situation?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there are different kinds of public inquiries under different remits and some of them involve subpoenas to witnesses and some do not. I shall have to write to the noble Viscount on that point.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I assume that if this matter comes to court, the department will fight the public interest case with all vigour, including the precedential point that would be set if something is disclosed, as people will consider that future accidents will result in disclosure. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 9 [Regulations]:
Lord Bradshawmoved Amendment No. 6:
Page 5. line 47, at end insert—
"( ) The Secretary of State shall make regulations concerning the management of a site being investigated to ensure that the Chief Inspector has overall management control of the site while his investigations are in progress."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to provide that the regulations are made with the consent of chief police officers, the British Transport Police and the Health and Safety Executive and that the regulations will make it very clear to everyone that, in the investigation of an accident, the RAIB will have precedence. When investigating rail accidents—I imagine that I am the only person here who has done so—it is extremely important that one arrives at the site very quickly so that one is able to take the brake pressure in the cylinders before it has been destroyed, which will happen within half an hour or a couple of hours. If one does not arrive at the site quickly the evidence starts to leak away. Rust marks and matters of that kind are extremely important, but a shower of rain will take them away. If such places are declared scenes of crimes or if the precedence lies with a health and safety inspector who keeps people away for several hours, useful evidence can so easily be destroyed.

985
In moving the amendment I seek to ensure that protocols are agreed with the people concerned, clearing the way for rail accident inspectors to arrive as quickly as possible at the scene of the accident—not at the perimeter of the site—although they cannot be everywhere. I beg to move.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, in supporting Amendment No. 6 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 7 standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Faulkner. Both amendments seek to achieve the same point. Amendment No. 7 is designed to cover the same matter as Amendment No. 6 but in cases where the chief inspector has decided not to become involved in an accident.
As we have discussed at previous stages of the Bill, it is likely when there is an incident or an accident that the local police force will arrive first. The amendments are designed to encourage the local police to put a fence around the accident, if that is appropriate, to protect the site and as I believe they are required to do for air accidents. The instruction is to rope off the site and to wait. They should rope it off and not fiddle with the evidence inside. If the RAIB is to be involved its inspectors will be there and, as the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, said, they will have the expertise to deal with it. If it is not to be involved, the British Transport Police have an enormous amount of expertise in such matters, and they would say, "Right, we can start the trains running again; it is not a problem", or they would look at the situation with their particular railway experience.
The worst example of which I am aware is that a year or two ago a Virgin train in Scotland was diverted onto a branch line where it was moving at about five miles per hour when it derailed because the track collapsed underneath it. No one was hurt, but of course the train could not move. Virgin was very quick to get buses to take the passengers away, but unfortunately the local police took about five hours to interview every passenger on the train in case a crime had been committed. That is probably the worst example, from which I believe we have all learned. It is important that those who are not specialists should confine their activities at the scene of an incident or an accident to putting a fence around the site, protecting it and waiting for the specialists.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I support the two amendments and as my noble friend Lord Berkeley said, I have put my name to Amendment No. 7. He has shared with your Lordships a story about an incident in Scotland. Another incident in Scotland also makes the point. It was a minor case—sadly not minor for the one individual concerned—but it proves why it is important that there is a proper hierarchy of who is responsible when something happens on the railways.
On 29th April this year, sadly there was a suicide on the line at Dunbar. The deputy chief constable of the British Transport Police happened to be travelling on the train from Edinburgh to London when the train struck
986
the unfortunate person. The emergency brakes were applied, the train came to a halt, and the driver confirmed to the deputy chief constable, Mr Tony Lake, that it was indeed a suicide. There was no suggestion that the person had been tied to the track or was in any way the victim of a crime.
However, as the matter was being sorted out on the spot, two officers from the Lothian and Borders police turned up and declared it a scene of crime and were proposing to bring in SOC officers. The implications of that, as my noble friend Lord Berkeley said, would have been a very serious delay. Happily, because Mr Lake insisted on taking control of the occasion, he said that he was in charge. He put a tarpaulin over the body, moved it 300 yards and told the driver to move the train. That avoided a delay that could easily have lasted many hours, which in today's penalty regime on the railways would have incurred huge costs for a number of people .
The purpose of the story is that when an incident takes place on the railways, particularly if it does not involve the RAIB, it is important that the BTP, with all their expertise, should be given primacy. That is the purpose of the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords. I entirely agree that it is essential that the RAIB should have control of the accident or incident site, which is exactly what the Bill provides.
Clause 8(5)states:
"Subsection (6) applies where—

"(a) the Rail Accident Investigation Branch is conducting an investigation by virtue of section 7 in respect of an accident or incident, and

(b) a question arises as to the desirability of action which any other person proposes to take for the purpose of investigating the accident or incident".

Subsection (6) then applies that the question of the desirability of action by any other person,
"may be determined by—

(a) the Chief Inspector of Rail Accidents, or

(b) an inspector of rail accidents acting on behalf of the Chief Inspector".

We have exactly the provision when it is an issue of whether to move a train, fence things off or to do anything which anyone else may wish to do for other reasons. Any question which arises as to the desirability of action is determined not by anybody else, but by the rail accident investigation branch.
I do not believe that that meets the case of the deputy chief constable of the British Transport Police because I presume that in the case to which the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, referred the RAIB had not actually reached the scene by that time. However, it meets the thrust behind these two amendments.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, my noble friend has given a very lucid explanation of subsections (5) and (6) It could happen that if the chief inspector or a representative takes an hour or two to get to the scene, the local police will not only have placed a barrier around the site but will also have started poking

987
around. Are any instructions to be given in regulations, or by some other means, to the local police forces around the country not to do that?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there will be a protocol between the chief inspector and the Association of Chief Police Officers. The chief inspector is due to meet ACPO shortly to discuss these practical issues which will arise during an investigation.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I thank the Minister for what he has said. It goes a long way to meet the concerns which I have expressed. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 [Requirement to investigate]:
[Amendment No.7 not moved.]
Clause 21 [Chief Constable]:
Lord Bradshawmoved Amendment No.8:
Page 9, line 32, at end insert—
"( ) Regulations under subsection (4) shall not come into effect before 31st December 2004."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment is meant to be helpful and touches on the fact that there is quite a lot of work to do both in the recruitment and training of railway accident inspectors and on the agreement of the various protocols which will surround their work.
I am very mindful of the fact that once a chief inspector is appointed, many people, including the press, will expect a kind of all-singing, all dancing organisation to be there the day after. We all know that it takes quite a long time for an effective organisation to be built up. My purpose in moving this amendment is to allow sufficient time for the protocols and people necessary to be put in place. I do not want a case next week of a bad railway accident and the Daily Mail screaming "Where is the rail accident investigation branch?" As far as I can tell at the moment, it consists of one person who is designate and no protocols, staff or training. I realise that this is probably a point for discussion. I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I support this amendment. In discussions with the Marine Accident Investigation Branch we were told that that organisation came into being two days before the "Bowbelle" disaster on the Thames. There was great expectation that it would be able to look into that accident. There have been suggestions that the RAIB might come into effect, if that is the right word, on 1st April next year. I hope that the Government will give the chief inspector the necessary time to get the protocols and everything else into line, as the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, said. It is desperately important that the RAIB starts off on a high note with maximum
988
credibility, a properly trained staff, and the capability to do this work. In the meantime there has to be some interim arrangement in which I am sure that everyone will co-operate to ensure that everything goes well. It is desperately important that the organisation starts off in the right way.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, 1 am at a loss. This amendment says that the regulations for the suspension of the chief constable of the British Transport Police shall not come into force until 31st December 2004. That cannot be what the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, meant. I do not believe that he meant it to be in Clause 21. Perhaps the noble Lord would like to table the amendment at Third Reading in the right place and we can talk about it there.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 27 [Civilian employees]:
Lord Bradshawmoved Amendment No. 9:
Page 12, line 32, at end insert—
"( ) For the purpose of employing community support officers under section 38 of the Police Reform Act 2002 (c. 30) (police powers for police authority employees)—

(a) the Authority shall be considered a police authority;

(b) the Police Force shall be considered a police force: and

(c) the Chief Constable shall he considered a chief officer of police."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, we turn now to the Police Reform Act. There are other amendments grouped with this in the name of the Minister and they may touch on what I have to say.
We are very anxious that the British Transport Police should enjoy the same powers as other police forces in terms of their ability to employ community support officers, civilian employees and special constables, if that is the wish of the police authority, so that the British Transport Police are not treated as some kind of poor relation and a force apart, but as one of the police forces of this country and empowered to do their job with all the tools which we can put at their disposal. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, without curtailing debate, I shall speak to Amendment No. 10 because it does exactly what Amendment No. 9 is intended to do, only better. Our amendment will allow the British Transport Police to deploy community support officers and investigation, detention and escort officers as they want to. It brings the British Transport Police fully into line with Home Office police forces as regards these kinds of civilian officers.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, from this side of the House we are grateful to the Minister for bringing forward his amendment, which I believe will satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, and perhaps also the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, it certainly does. Indeed, it goes further than I dared hope that the

989
government amendment would. I was delighted to hear what my noble friend said. I am sure that the British Transport Police will be grateful that they are being treated exactly on all fours with the 43 Home Office forces.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I thank the Minister for what he has said and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 10:
After Clause 27, insert the following new clause—
EXERCISE OF POWERS BY CIVILIANS

(1) The following provisions of the Police Reform Act 2002 (c. 30) shall apply in relation to the Police Force as they apply in relation to other police forces—

(a) section 38 (police powers for police authority employees),

(b) section 39 (police powers for contracted-out staff),

(c) section 42 (supplementary),

(d) section 45 (code of practice),

(e) section 46 (offences),

(f) section 47 (interpretation), and

(g) Schedule 4 (powers exercisable by civilians).

(2) For the purpose of subsection ( 1 ) the provisions specified in that subsection shall have effect with any necessary modifications and, in particular—

(a) the provisions shall have effect as if a reference to a police force were a reference to the Police Force,

(b) the provisions shall have effect as if a reference to the chief officer of police of a police force were a reference to the Chief Constable,

(c) the provisions shall have effect as if a reference to a police authority were a reference to the Authority,

(d) the provisions shall have effect as if a reference to a constable were a reference to a constable of the Police Force,

(e) section 45 shall have effect, except in relation to a code which is expressed to apply for the purposes of that section in its application both by virtue of this section and otherwise, as if for subsection (3) there were substituted a requirement to consult the Authority and the Chief Constable, and

(f) Schedule 4 shall have effect as if a reference to the relevant police area or a police area were a reference to—

(i) any place in England or Wales where a constable of the Police Force has powers by virtue of section 30(1)(a) to (f) of this Act, and

(ii) for a purpose connected to a railway or to anything occurring on or in relation to a railway, any place in England and Wales."

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 73 [Regulations and orders]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 11:
Page 30, line 40, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment and Amendment No. 20 are in response to recommendations made by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform
990
Committee. Amendment No. 11 would ensure that any order brought forward by the Secretary of State to vary the upper and lower limits on the number of people on the proposed British Transport Police Authority would be subject to the negative procedure in Parliament.
Amendment No. 20 would require the Health and Safety Executive levy to be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure the first time it is implemented before reverting to the negative procedure thereafter. As the Bill is currently drafted, the levy would be subject to the negative procedure on every occasion including the first. We are in this way complying with the wishes of the committee. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 76 [Extent]:
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 12:
Page 32, line 24, at end insert—
"( ) The powers exercisable by virtue of section (Exercise of powers by civilians) shall not be exercisable in relation to Scotland."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 77 [Professional staff on duty]:
Viscount Astormoved Amendment No. 13:
Page 32, line 32, at end insert ", and
(d) a professional harbour master acting in accordance with his duties."
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, when I moved this amendment in Committee, the Minister accused me of widening the scope of the Bill to cover harbour masters, which is the purpose of my amendment. I have since done some homework. The situation is that harbour masters quite often spend large parts of their time acting as a pilot on a ship, where they are covered by Clause 77(1). But they also spend quite a large part of their time in an office, giving instructions to ships of various sizes—for example, very large tankers—on where they should go and how they should enter harbours and restricted shipping lanes. This is an important area in view of the Marine Safety Bill which had its Second Reading last Friday.
In aviation, the Government have gone much wider by including pilots, navigators, engineers, and even cabin crew and air traffic controllers. My amendment does not seem to widen the scope of the Bill to an enormous extent. The Minister said, quite rightly, that harbour masters operate on a two-dimensional basis rather than a three-dimensional one. But they still carry out an important role. They work both in offices and onshore. They should be covered by the provisions, as they give instructions that affect safety. The point is that they instruct shipping. I have had conversations with harbour masters and am assured that they wish to remain sober in the workplace. Should the amendment be agreed, I will be able to visit the harbour without getting chucked over the nearest jetty. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I said in Committee that the amendment would widen the scope of the Bill beyond the recommendations made by

991
Lord Justice Clarke. The amendment would bring the Bill into areas on which there has been no consultation and where there has been no demonstrated need for legislation.
We make the distinction that various people, not just harbour masters, but harbour authority staff, British Waterways officials, Broads Authority officials and all sorts of other staff, have an auxiliary onshore role in controlling navigation but do not have the same role as people on a ship, who are in control of immediate decisions that the ship takes, or air traffic controllers, who virtually take over the controls of aircraft on a minute-to-minute, second-by-second basis, in the analogy that the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, uses. We are talking about a distinction between 80 mg and 20 mg of alcohol—nothing more dramatic. It is the distinction between staff who are in instant, second-by-second control and those who are not. If we extended the provision to harbour masters, we would have to extend it to many others.
All those people, including harbour masters, must be subject to company policies designed to combat alcohol and drug misuse among the workforce. We expect the Marine and Coastguard Agency to do that. That appears to be adequate protection. I have heard of no-one who has suggested that there is any difficulty with that at present. We are tightening up an area where there may well be difficulty. I do not think that the amendment is necessary. I would not wish to see it in the Bill.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his response. I apologise for not saying earlier that I will not be moving Amendment No. 14, which is grouped with this amendment. I am sorry that I failed to convince the Minister. I do not think that he is right in saying that, if the provisions are extended to harbour masters, they must be extended to a whole group of people. The people I seek to include are those who carry out the role of giving instructions. That is a very different job. In the same way as air traffic controllers give instructions to aircraft, harbour masters give instructions to shipping. They should come under the same rules.
4.55 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 13) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 42; Not-Contents, 100.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Colwyn, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Astor, V.

Craig of Radley, L.

Blatch, B.

Craigavon, V.

Bridgeman, V.

Cumberlege, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Burnham, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Buscombe, B.

Geddes, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Henley, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L

992

Howe, E.

Parkinson, L.

Hylton, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Laird, L.

Rees, L.

Luke, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Seccombe, B.[Teller]

Maginnis of Drumglass, L.

Selborne, E.

Marlesford, L.

Selsdon, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Noakes, B.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Northesk, E.

Vivian, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Windlesham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hoyle, L.

Ahmed, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Alli, L.

Levy, L.

Amos, B.

Lipsey, L.

Andrews, B.

McCarthy, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Berkeley, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Blackstone, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Borrie, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Brookman, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Carter, L.

Mitchell, L.

Christopher, L.

Morgan, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Parekh, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Pitkeathley.B.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Crawley, B.

Prys-Davies, L.

Darcy de Knayth,B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]

Rea, L.

Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Desai, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Dholakia, L.

Rogers of Riverside, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Erroll, E.

Rooker, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Sawyer, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Evans of Watford, L.

Sewel, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Sheldon, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Simon, V.

Filkin, L.

Slim, V.

Gale, B.

Stallard, L.

Gavron, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Temple-Morris, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Thornton, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Turner of Camden, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Uddin, B.

Grocott, L.[Teller]

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Hamwee, B.

Warner, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Weatherill, L.

Harrison, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Haskel, L.

Whitaker, B.

Hayman, B.

Whitty, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Wilkins, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.6 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 not moved.]
Viscount Astormoved Amendment No. 16:
Page 33, line 7, after "vessel" insert "or on a vessel with a crew of three or less".

993
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, at Committee stage we debated Clause 77(5) where fishing vessels have a defence because sometimes they have a small crew. They are at sea for a long time. It may be necessary for someone to take a drug for medicinal purposes to enable them to get home, thereby not endangering the rest of the crew and any passengers. We debated this concept and I understand why the fishing vessel exemption was included. However, there are similar occasions where fishermen, due to the sad decline of fishing stocks around our shores, do a lot of other things. Sometimes they act as fishermen and sometimes not. They may take people on trips round islands. They may take people sightseeing or mackerel fishing, even diving. They do a variety of things. Sometimes the distances are just as long as when they were fishing. Some boats have a crew of three, two or even one. A licensed operator can run a charter boat with a DTI licence to carry up to a dozen people with a crew of one. If the captain needs to take a drug on medical advice he should be able to do so and have the same defence as those in the fishing industry.
This is not about large ships. They have large crews and there would be someone else to take over the responsibility. The defence was originally put in to protect crews of small fishing vessels. There has been an explosion round our shores of small vessels plying various trades. They should have a similar defence. What we do not want is for the skipper of a charter boat with eight or 10 passengers on a 12-hour trip being reluctant to take along medicine in case it would be an offence. But by not doing so he could endanger the lives of his passengers.
The Minister has been kind enough to discuss these issues with us between Committee and Report stage. I am not sure whether this amendment is the right one but it is an important issue. I look forward to the response of the Minister. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am relieved that the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, did not move Amendment No. 15, because I have a long speaking note about fishing vessels. Amendment No. 16 is defective. The number "three" is arbitrary. In our opinion, simply stating a maximum crew size does not cover the various cases. There are issues of time spent at sea and the availability of other crew members to take over duties.
The fishing exemption covers small vessels, with small crew, undertaking long voyages. There may be circumstances in which it is better for crew members to take their medication—even where there is a warning of drowsiness and against operating machinery or driving—rather than not taking medicine and risk being in a worse state.
If one is in charge of the kind of vessel that the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, is talking about—a single person going out with someone else, a customer fishing, diving or whatever, or carrying a passenger from one place to another, that person will make a judgement about whether they are better off taking a
994
drug. I cannot imagine that if a single sailor comes back on a small ship and has taken a drug, he will be tested for drugs and accused of breaking the law.
We do not want to define circumstances to allow this medical defence on certain commercial ships. If we had to do so, we would have to describe the circumstances in which such a ship could be operated safely in all foreseeable situations under normal operating conditions but at a manning level that was so low that the seafarer who was under the influence of a medicinal drug had to remain on duty in order to maintain a safe ship.
It is not a problem for commercial ships over 500 gross tonnes, because the marine and coastguard agencies apply the merchant shipping hours of work regulations. They state that the minimum safe manning levels are those required for all foreseeable circumstances and working conditions to permit the safe operation of the ship under normal operational conditions.
Commercial ships under 500 gross tonnes that operate with small crews are likely to be operated on shorter voyages in coastal waters close to a port. In those circumstances, our advice would be to wait until they go ashore before taking medicine that would impair their performance. On that basis, I invite the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, not to press the amendment.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, if one follows the logic of the Minister's answer, it shows that subsection (5) is unnecessary. The noble Lord says that one should not prescribe; one should not need to; someone will take a sensible decision; no one is going to prosecute someone coming back in these situations. If that is the case, why is the exemption for fishing vessels needed? It seems that that is the same analogy. Why do fishing vessels need this exemption? Will people be standing on the pier waiting to jump on fishermen coming back, any more than they are going to jump on anyone else?
I do not see the justification for the Minister's arguments. I am sorry to say that he has missed the point. I accepted, in moving the amendment, that whatever one chooses—say, a crew of three—is arbitrary. The definition of fishing is probably arbitrary too. The Minister has not persuaded me, and I do not regard his answer as satisfactory. I shall come back at Third Reading. One solution would be to have some form of tonnage, or some combination to make it work.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have attacked the limit of three. Let us talk between now and Third Reading about whether anything can be done. I still think that it is difficult to define the circumstances in which the medical defence should be allowed on some commercial ships and not others. I do not wish to see the medical defence extended unless we absolutely have to. I am certainly willing to talk about it.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. He has been enormously helpful throughout

995
the Bill. I understand where he is coming from, but of course, as 1 said, if you follow the logic of his argument, the exemption for fishing vessels is perhaps not needed. I am grateful for his helpful reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 84 [Arrest without warrant]:
[Amendment No. 17 not moved.]
Clause 95 [Specimens, &c.]:
Lord Berkeleymoved Amendment No. 18:
Page 41, line 28, column 3, at end of paragraph (b) insert—
"(c) an accident occurs owing to the presence of an aircraft in a public place and a constable reasonably suspects that the person was at the time of the accident a person to whom section (93)(1)(a) applied."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving the amendment, 1 thank the Minister for meeting me and specialists from the police and the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety. The key to this argument is that with the very low level of alcohol limit proposed for air crew it is difficult for police officers to form a suspicion that alcohol may have been a factor in an accident before taking a breath specimen. The limit is much lower than the current level for road alcohol. That is the reason for the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Bill already provides the police with the power to test suspected offenders provided they have reasonable cause. An accident might be a factor taken into account when the officer considers whether he has such cause.
The amendment, as drafted, creates a number of practical difficulties, principally in the reference to the presence of an aircraft in a public place. That would exclude a number of places where aviation accidents could take place, notably runways. I accept that the principle behind the amendment has some force. I cannot make any guarantees. We shall consider further whether we can put down a suitable amendment at Third Reading.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend and I look forward to meeting him before Third Reading. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 104 [Railways safety levy]:
Lord Berkeleymoved Amendment No. 19:
Page 46, line 27, at end insert—
"( ) Regulations under subsection (1) shall take into account the licence fee arrangements operated by the Rail Regulator."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, having clearly lost the battle for the Health and Safety Executive to be funded by the railway industry, this is my second attempt. If there must be changes in the way the Health and Safety Executive charges the railway industry, there are one or two principles that I hope that my
996
noble friend will consider. The executive should not charge more money than at present and should not increase the scope of what it charges for.
The proposals from the rail regulator as to how he should fund his operations, payable by the industry, seem to me a good model on which future regulations might be based. Network Rail should pay 50 per cent of the costs, and the rest should be spread across the licence holders based on the historic turnover for the previous financial year; that is passenger and non-passenger stations and light maintenance depot licence holders.
That means that new entrants would be exempt. It is important to encourage new entrants to the industry. My noble friend says that heritage railways would be exempt. This is a probing amendment. I look forward to my noble friend's comments. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I accept the principle that the Health and Safety Executive should talk to the Office of the Rail Regulator when developing proposals to give effect to the railway lobby. It is already doing so and will continue to do so. That is not a problem.
The problem with the amendment is that it gives primacy to those consultations. That means that it would be more difficult for the Health and Safety Executive to speak with the same force to other industry bodies such as the Strategic Rail Authority or other industries with a similar levy regime.
I understand that the Health and Safety Commission and the Health and Safety Executive have a policy to use rail-related turnover in the previous financial year as the best proxy for determining the individual amounts to be paid under a levy. As my noble friend Lord Berkeley said, that lets off new entrants. I understand that that is similar to the arrangements operated by the Office of the Rail Regulator, but final arrangements will be subject to consultation.
The Health and Safety Executive should retain the ability to consider any other schemes it likes and talk to anybody it likes in developing regulations. On the basis that that is already being done and that it is following the ORR's regime, I hope that the amendment will not be pressed.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. Notwithstanding the fact that it may have been done, it is good to have his remarks on the record. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringeymoved Amendment No. 20:
Page 47, line 4, at end insert—
"( ) In section 82 of that Act (general provisions)—

(a) in subsection (3)(b) after "which" insert "(unless subsection (4) applies)", and

(b) after subsection (3) insert—

997
"(4) The first regulations under section 43A(l) shall not be made unless a draft has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament.""
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 107 [Seat belts: delivery drivers]:
Viscount Astormoved Amendment No. 21:
Leave out Clause 107.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is the seat belt clause. I am grateful to the Minister, who wrote to me explaining the Government's thinking on the issue. He explained that the words that appear in the Road Traffic Act 1988 are not well understood. The Act refers to local rounds, deliveries or collections. In effect, what has happened is that a large number of people delivering over long and short distances feel that they need not wear a seat belt.
Department for Transport surveys show that only 65 per cent of van drivers and 55 per cent of their passengers wear seat belts. If those seat belts were worn at rates something like those for cars—90 per cent-plus—it would save up to 20 lives and 240 serious casualties annually. It is an important matter. We have a greater understanding of the clause since receiving the Minister' letter.
The Minister said that there was an obligation to consult representative organisations, including the Freight Transport Association and the relevant trade unions and operators, on how the system should work and what the maximum distance should be. However, it would be helpful if we heard from the Government on timing. When do they intend to start the consultation? How long do they intend it to go on for? When do they expect to bring forward regulations?
It took a long time to get the wearing of seat belts in the front of cars accepted by everybody in this country, and I suspect that the wearing of seat belts in the back seat of cars—brought in by a Conservative government—has less general acceptance and is not often done. What is the Government's thinking? Do they intend, for example, that those driving large trucks should wear seat belts unless they are doing short-distance deliveries? What about taxi drivers? I understand that they do not wear seat belts. Taxi drivers might do short journeys, but they do not often get out of their taxi. Does the department have any evidence that road safety would improve if taxi drivers wore seat belts? I do not know, so I would be interested to hear.
The general principle is that, now that people in this country wear seat belts, it would not be a great burden to require them to put on a seat belt, even for a very short journey. I was particularly surprised to find that, under current regulations, passengers need not wear a seat belt for a short journey. If a driver and a passenger are making a delivery, there is enough time, while the driver starts the car or the van and puts it into gear, for the passenger to put a seat belt on. Often, delivery vans have no airbags or anything like that. Will the Government consider not giving exemption to passengers? There may be a case for giving it to drivers for short deliveries but not to passengers.
998
It would be helpful if the Minister could be more explicit about the Government's thinking. They intend to bring forward regulations that we support in principle, but we need to know more about their thinking. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I notice that the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, chose not to defend the amendment but to use the occasion to ask questions. I do not resent that.
First, the noble Viscount asked me about the timing of consultation. We shall start as soon as is practicable after the Bill receives Royal Assent. We cannot do so until there is some statutory basis for it. He asked about the position of heavy goods vehicle drivers and taxi drivers. At the moment, HGV drivers are required to wear seat belts. The amendment is about vans. Taxi drivers are exempt when they are carrying passengers. In other words, when they are plying for hire they are supposed to wear seat belts. There will be a negligible prize for the first person who sees a taxi driver wearing a seat belt when he is plying for hire.
The basic issue is the effect of Clause 107. Why do we want it? If we deleted the clause, it would not mean that delivery drivers needed to wear seat belts; it would mean that the exemption that they have would continue. Section 14 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 means that those making frequent stops, such as for household rubbish collection or doorstep deliveries need not wear a seat belt. That is not understood.
The Act refers to,
"the users of vehicles constructed or adapted for the delivery of goods or mail to consumers or addressees, as the case may he. while engaged in making local rounds or deliveries".
What is not clear—we want to make it clear by regulation—is what is meant by "local rounds or deliveries". We shall define local rounds or deliveries by the distance between stops. In that way, we hope to achieve an increase in the rates of seat belt wearing, to which the noble Viscount referred, and a reduction in accidents, to which he also referred.
Any change would not alter the existing legislation governing the way in which children are carried in goods vehicles. It will increase understanding of the exemption legitimately provided for local rounds with short distances between stops, without taking away any protection. On that basis, I hope that Clause 107 will be allowed to stand. My understanding is that it had cross-party support in the House of Commons.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. The other place did not have the time to debate the clause, as so often happens. We have a clearer understanding of the Government's thinking. The Minister said that there would be consultation, and, in his letter, he said that it would be with other interested parties. I hope that he will be able to include

999
in that consultation noble Lords who took part in debates on the Bill as interested parties. I am sure that he will.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Of course.
Viscount Astor: I am grateful for that assurance, and sI beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 22:
After Clause 107, insert the following new clause—
"DRIVING A MOTOR VEHICLE WHILE DRIVING ABILITY IS IMPAIRED DUE TO THE INFLUENCE OF DRUGS
(1)—In the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) after section 40A (using a vehicle in dangerous condition etc.) there is inserted—
"408 DRIVING A MOTOR VEHICLE WHILE DRIVING ABILITY IS IMPAIRED DUE TO THE INFLUENCE OF DRUGS

(1) A person commits an aggravated offence if he drives a motor vehicle on a road while his ability to drive is impaired by drugs.

(2) A person guilty of an offence under this Part shall be liable—

(a) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or to a fine, or to both.

(b) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum.

(3) Where a person is charged with an offence under this section in respect of the effect of a drug on his ability to drive, it is a defence for him to show that—

(a) he took the drug for a medicinal purpose on, and in accordance with, medical advice, or

(b) he look the drug for a medicinal purpose and had no reason to believe that it would impair his ability to drive.

40C FIELD IMPAIRMENT TEST AND BLOOD OR OTHER SAMPLES

(1) A constable shall have the right to require any driver whom he reasonably suspects of committing a moving traffic offence while under the influence of drugs to take a field impairment test, or require a blood or other bodily sample for analysis, or both, for the purpose of establishing whether or not that driver is under the influence of any drug.

(2) Where a constable requires a field impairment test or a blood or other bodily sample to be taken, it shall be an offence to refuse.

(3) Where a sample is required, a constable shall convey the person suspected of the offence to a police station for the taking of the sample by a properly qualified person.

(4) A person guilty of refusing a field impairment test or a sample shall be liable to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.

(5) The Secretary of State may by regulation establish maximum limits for the presence of drugs in the body of a person for the purpose of determining impairment of ability to drive.

(6) Regulations under this Part shall require the approval of both Houses of Parliament."

(2) It shall be the duty of each coroner to publish each year a report containing a list of all accidents which led to fatalities in which any of the drivers involved tested positive for any drug.
(3) It shall be the duty of each police force to include each year in its annual report a report containing—
1000

(a) a list of all motor accidents which led to fatalities in which any of the drivers involved tested positive for any drug, and

(b) a list of all motor accidents causing injury in which any of the drivers involved tested positive for any drug."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 22 seeks to modernise a significant part of the law in relation to drugs and driving on the basis of existing evidence. Drug taking is an increasing problem. Evidence indicates that there is an increasing chance that drivers will be driving under the influence of drugs. I am most grateful to the noble Lords. Lord Faulkner of Worcester and Lord Bradshaw, for adding their names to the amendment.
It would be superfluous to go over all the background to this amendment which has been well discussed in Grand Committee, at Second Reading and indeed at Second Reading of my Private Member's Bill. Since Grand Committee, still more information has come forward. I have received papers from the British Medical Association and the All-Party Parliamentary Drugs Misuse Group. These continue the trend of acknowledging that there is a problem and the complexity of the problem. No one is absolutely certain of how to deal with it but there seems to be a general concurrence that something needs to be done.
I draw the attention of the House to a paper that I have received from the National Council of Women of Great Britain, which undertook a survey specifically directed at drugs and driving in the Tees Valley region—receiving 1,024 replies. I shall not go into all the details of the survey, except to report question 4 which asked: "Should there be a legal limit for drugs (including medicines) and driving as there is for alcohol?". It is very interesting that 74 per cent of respondents answered in the affirmative. There is a clear view from the public about the need to do something on this problem. It is superfluous for me to say any more at this stage. This amendment is well directed. It may not be perfectly drafted but it was the best I could do. I beg to move.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I know that this is an extremely difficult problem. I am sure that the Minister will say that it is very difficult. I want the matter kept before the Government and responsible authorities and something done as soon as reasonably practicable.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I was pleased to support the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, when he proposed this measure in a Private Member's Bill. I congratulate him on his perseverance and on his ingenuity for getting it debated in the context of the Bill. I support him.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I join those who congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, on his perseverance. We debated this in his Private Member's Bill and he continues to seek to improve the amendments he puts forward. I acknowledge that. However, there are two lines of attack. The first is the

1001
long and difficult haul towards statutory limits for drugs. The position is better than it was but it is still extraordinarily complicated. Different statutory limits would apply for different drugs and different drugs have different effects on different people. We are nowhere near having a usable test which could be used like the blood levels of alcohol test for drink driving. When we have such a test, the Road Traffic Act 1988, which includes drink or drugs, will allow us to implement it, but it may be some years away.
There is a second approach which we take very seriously—that is, impairment testing at the roadside. I said in response to the Private Member's Bill—I think I said again in Committee—that we are stepping up the number of police qualified to conduct impairment testing. That is rather like what used to happen as regards alcohol before blood or breath sample tests were imposed. There is a possibility that we can make progress in this area. We are considering whether it is possible to propose measures to provide additional police powers against driving under the influence of drugs. If that were possible—I cannot give any firm commitment—we could lay an appropriate government amendment at Third Reading.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his positive reply. I had expected it because he has been positive on this issue ever since I started pushing on it. I appreciate what the Minister said about additional police powers and the possibility of a government amendment. That is certainly enough to persuade me that I need take the matter no further today, but I may need to put this amendment down as a marker in order to ensure that the government amendment comes forward at Third Reading. For now, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester Lord Faulkner of Worcester moved Amendment No. 23:
After Clause 107, insert the following new clause—
"DRIVING WHILE USING MOBILE TELEPHONE ETC.

(1) The Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 (S.I. 1986/1078) are amended as follows.

(2) After Regulation 109 there is inserted—

"MOBILE TELEPHONES
110 No person shall drive, or cause or permit to be driven, a motor vehicle on a road, if the driver is using a hand-held mobile telephone or similar device.""
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I tabled Amendment No. 23 in Grand Committee but did not move because we ran out of time. I have therefore brought it forward today. The amendment seeks to ban the use of hand-held mobile phones by drivers. Mobile phones are an essential part of life for many people. They enable us to maintain contact with family, friends and work colleagues and, very importantly, to summon help if we are in trouble. However, they have also created a significant risk because enormous numbers of drivers use mobile
1002
phones when driving. Surveys consistently show that around one-third of drivers admit to using a phone while driving. Those drivers with the highest accident risk are the ones most likely to do so, increasing their risk even further. Three-quarters of company car drivers and one-half of young drivers use mobiles while driving. Observation studies found that at any one time an astonishing one in 50 drivers is using a mobile phone.
Last year, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents—I declare an unremunerated interest as its president—published The Risk of Using a Mobile Phone While Driving survey which showed that a substantial body of research conducted in the UK and many other countries concluded that using a handheld or hands-free mobile phone when driving is a significant distraction causing multiple problems for drivers. These include the fact that they become mentally divorced from what is happening on the road around them; they are unable to maintain proper lane position and a predictable steady speed; they are more likely to tailgate the vehicle in front and their reaction times are much slower; and they are more likely to enter unsafe gaps that are too small. The end result is that drivers who use a mobile phone when driving are up to four times more likely to crash, injuring or killing themselves or other people.
The United Kingdom's accident data do not record whether mobile phones are being used at the time of an accident, but RoSPA has collected press reports of 23 fatal road accidents in the UK where courts have cited the use of a mobile phone. The descriptions make tragic reading. A driver, listening to a message, crossed to the wrong side of the road and hit a van head-on. killing its driver. A driver ran over and killed a child pedestrian while using his phone. A truck driver, distracted when his phone rang, hit and killed a cyclist. A driver, talking on the phone to his boss. hit a parked truck and died in the resulting fire. A driver composing a text message veered into a lay-by and killed a man standing by his car.
What can be done? Regulation 104 of the Road Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations 1986 states that the driver must be in proper control of the vehicle. That can be used against drivers who use mobiles, but it is ineffective, as drivers do not understand that they are not in proper control when using a mobile phone. The Highway Code advises drivers that they must not use a hand-held mobile phone when driving. The Government have conducted national publicity campaigns. Police forces have tried to conduct enforcement campaigns, but the message is not getting across to motorists, who persist in vast numbers to use their mobiles on a regular basis when driving.
A specific ban, which the amendment proposes, has massive support in public opinion surveys and in my view is the only answer. The issue was taken up by my distinguished predecessor as the President of RoSPA, whom I am delighted to see in his place as the new Government Deputy Chief Whip. RoSPA has taken the cause on board for many years, and I am delighted to be able to take it on board again. I hope very much

1003
that the Minister will be able to say that the consultation process that the Government have undertaken has led them irrevocably to the conclusion that a ban on the use of mobile phones by drivers is necessary. I hope that, if they do not accept the amendment today, they will announce a ban very shortly.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I cannot support the amendment, whatever the principles are that lie behind it, because it raises an issue that the Government have to come forward on themselves rather than relying on the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester—however well intended he is. There are a number of issues that the Government have to consider.
My understanding is that the use of mobile phones is legal, and that the police stop people who are driving around with a mobile phone clamped to their ear. I shall be grateful if the Minister will tell us whether that is correct. More evidence is required to show whether every form of hands-free device carries the same danger, as the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, claims they do. I am not convinced by that, because if one follows that analogy—
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, if the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, reads the terms of my amendment, he will see that it does not refer to hands-free mobiles. There is evidence that drivers are distracted when using hands-free as well as the handheld variety, but the police have advised us that enforcing the hands-free ban is too difficult. The modest proposal contained in the amendment is, therefore, just for the hand-held type.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, as he has answered the question that I was just about to ask. I am not sure that there is any evidence, and I am not sure that his amendment, which says,
"hand-held mobile telephone or similar device",
necessarily excludes hands-free phones as it is drafted.
There is a debate about whether hands-free telephones are distracting, and there may be circumstances in which they are, just as people may be distracted by changing the radio station for the music that they are listening to in the car. There is also the difficulty over whether we should allow minicab drivers to speak on their radios, for example. Taxis have digital display screens, which drivers need to look at; sometimes they do that when they are stationary, but they may have a quick glance at them as they are going along. Is that something that should happen? Then there are the emergency services, which use radios that are certainly not hands-free.
The issue is important, and we look forward to seeing the government consultation when it is finished. The Government need to take account of all the issues. However well-intentioned the amendment is, it is not for this Bill or for today.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I support the amendment. I should have added my name to it but I did not. That was an oversight on my part.
1004
As a cyclist and pedestrian who has been on the receiving end of the behaviour of many drivers using hand-held mobile phones, I have witnessed first hand the situations that my noble friend described. It is impossible to drive a car, hold a phone, change gear and concentrate on what you are doing. I can give many examples of people who have been hurt and killed as a result of drivers' loss of concentration when using hand-held mobile phones. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will either accept the amendment or agree to bring forward similar amendments very soon.
5.45 p.m.
Viscount Simon: My Lords, the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, raised the hoary question of drivers changing radio station while driving although he did not mention drivers eating sandwiches while driving. However, drivers can choose when to take those actions. One cannot choose the time when one receives a call on a mobile phone, be it hand-held or hands-free. The person on the other end of the phone is not aware of the traffic conditions that the driver faces. Nevertheless the driver's attention is diverted from driving.
Research in Canada and Japan indicates that a driver's attention can be diverted from what is happening around him or her for up to 10 minutes after the conversation is completed. My noble friend Lord Faulkner said that in that situation a driver can be mentally divorced from what is happening around him.
Some time ago I was on traffic patrol with others in a marked police vehicle. I was travelling somewhat slowly round a roundabout. Someone joined the roundabout in front of me, forcing us to slow down. That person was speaking into a mobile phone and had no conception that we were there. We stopped the driver and she admitted that she had no idea that we were there. That is a perfect example of what happens in such situations.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I believe that everyone who has taken part in this short debate is aware that the Government are very seized of this issue. We issued a consultation document last summer seeking views on a proposal to prohibit the use of hand-held—not hands-free—mobile phones. We have had over 1,000 responses. We are now considering the responses that we have been given. I hope that we shall be able to make an announcement very shortly.
However, there is one difficulty with the amendment and one reason why it is not absolutely essential. The difficulty with the amendment is that when we give our response to the consultation I am sure, for the reasons given by a number of noble Lords, that it will be much more complicated than the wording of the amendment. The phrase,
"drive, or cause or permit to be driven"
is a very interesting phrase. I refer also to the phrase,
"a motor vehicle on a road".

1005
Does that apply to carparks or to private roads? As regards the phrase,
"if the driver is using a hand-held mobile telephone",
what is the definition of a "hand-held mobile telephone"?
Should there be exemptions for emergency services? All kinds of issues will have to be referred to in our response. That is the rather profound difficulty with the amendment. But, if it is any consolation, we do not need primary legislation to implement whatever we decide to do. It can be done by—as the amendment suggests—an addition to the construction and use regulations. We have power under Section 41 of the Road Traffic Act 1988, as amended, to make regulations about the conditions under which motor vehicles may be used on roads. If any announcement is made which commits us to change, it will not be lost because it is made after the passage of this Bill.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I think that I am able to decode the message which my noble friend gave me in that reply. I am encouraged by it. I believe that an announcement is not too far away. In that expectation, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bradshaw Lord Bradshaw moved Amendment No. 24:
After Clause 107, insert the following new clause—
"THE NATIONAL TRAILS

(1) In the interest of public health and safety, the following shall have effect.

(2) The Secretary of State shall within one year from the coming into force of this enactment make a permanent traffic regulation order to prohibit the use of non-essential mechanically propelled vehicles on the National Trails.

(3) Non-essential mechanically propelled vehicles shall mean all such vehicles but shall not include those driven by individuals with an estate or interest in land adjoining the Trails or their lawful visitors or emergency vehicles.

(4) A traffic regulation order shall mean an order as defined in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (c. 27) and as subsequently amended."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment addresses a matter of great concern. Since we previously discussed it in Grand Committee, I notice that the Countryside Agency has published a report in which it describes the situation on the national trails as a national disgrace.
There is no purpose in local authorities seeking to publish bits of traffic orders for bits of the national trails as they are very expensive to produce, take a long time to produce and are almost unenforceable once passed. What is needed to protect the national trails—we desperately need something to protect them—is a blanket traffic order which applies to all national trails everywhere and prohibits the use of any mechanically propelled vehicle other than that which has legitimate reason to be there. That would obviously include motor bikes and various quad bikes.
I know before he responds to the amendment that the Minister is sympathetic to what I am saying although he is concerned about the means of achieving
1006
what I propose. Should he wish, I am very willing to defer to Third Reading consideration of the amendment if between now and then I can meet with someone, for example, a Minister in another place, who is charged with getting something done about the matter.
I do not want to lose the opportunity to move a simple amendment that requires the Secretary of State to do something within a period of time after the Bill has passed; it does not compel him to do something immediately it has passed. However, I should like the Minister in his reply to advise me what I may best do to achieve an end result which, if put to a free vote of the House, would be passed overwhelmingly. I believe that that is what most of us would like to achieve. I beg to move.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, this issue is a nightmare. The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, has shown me the photographs of the Ridgeway, and I entirely accept that the places he has shown me are in an intolerable state. They are seas of mud or water and are in many ways impassable for pedestrians or cyclists. I therefore recognise the noble Lord's valid point. However, I do not have a simple answer, nor do I believe has he.
The noble Lord asked me what progress we can make. Invitations have been issued to him—I hope that by now he has received his—and the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, to attend a meeting to be held next week by Alun Michael, the Minister for Rural Affairs. It will be one of a number of meetings involving MPs, local highway authorities and the Countryside Agency to assess the progress made by the Ridgeway Management Group in implementing a comprehensive management plan, which includes the use of TROs. I now realise that I should have ensured that the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, was also invited, in view of the fact that he lives close to the Ridgeway. I will remedy that omission. It seems that the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, has not received the invitation. It will be sent again as soon as possible. It is now up to the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, and his colleagues to persuade Alun Michael that something should be done.
However, if the noble Lord's concern relates to the difficulty of local authorities to implement their powers to lay TROs, I can reassure the noble Lord that Section 22 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 already enables traffic regulation orders to be made in relation to special areas of the countryside. That section of the Act applies to, among other areas, long distance routes such as the Ridgeway.
The Act enables the Countryside Agency to make submissions to the Secretary of State about the desirability of a traffic regulation order being made in relation to a national trail. Where the traffic authorities responsible for a trail notify him that they do not intend to make an order imposing the proposed restrictions, the Secretary of State may himself promote an order as if he were the traffic authority. Of course, it will be the subject of the same procedures for

1007
objections, and if necessary a public inquiry, but I suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, should urge that course on the Minister for Rural Affairs.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. I will take advantage of attending the meeting, if I can. I do not believe that I have received the invitation. Unfortunately, my noble friend Lady Scott is in Hamburg, or somewhere a little more exotic than here. We will try to persuade Alun Michael to table proposals at Third Reading, because this is a rare parliamentary opportunity to do anything. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bradshawmoved Amendment No. 25:
After Clause 107, insert the following new clause—
"Operating centres
In section 13(5) of the Goods Vehicles (Licensing of Operators) Act 1995 (c. 23), after paragraph (d) there is inserted—
"( ) in permitting goods vehicles operators to establish an operating centre, the traffic commissioner is satisfied that the centre is available, suitable and of sufficient capacity and must take into account the suitability of the local road network for the establishment of such a centre;"."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope that we shall receive a positive response from the Minister to this amendment. This issue is a running sore in the countryside, particularly with farm buildings coming on to the market. In considering the suitability of an operating centre, the traffic commissioners would be enabled to look at the building, the road and the splay on to the road, but would be precluded from deciding whether the roads in the vicinity were suitable for heavy traffic.
It is all very well to say that the local authority may object to the planning consent. In fact, the planning consent for the buildings and the access to it may be in order. What is not in order is the highway, often leading for many miles around the operating centre. All that the amendment would do—and I hope that it is a simple amendment—is allow the traffic commissioner to have a little more power than he has now, but to take account of the impact that vehicle operation will have on the villages or small settlements around the operating centre. It is a minor amendment, but I am sure that there are many parts of the country where it would effective. It is no good to say that local authorities are experts on goods vehicles, even if the traffic commissioner had power to take into account what they say. Frankly, local authorities are not experts on goods vehicles and many of them know very little about them. I beg to move.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, is the noble Lord going speak to Amendment No. 26?
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I beg your pardon. I did not realise that it had been called.
We have come across a somewhat anomalous situation in the regulations. As I understand it, it was the Government's intention under the Transport Act 2000 to
1008
make sure that a vehicle which did not have an operator's licence could impounded by the Vehicle Inspectorate. As a result of a case which has recently been held by the Transport Tribunal, it appears that a company which hires out vehicles has no obligation to make sure that the person to whom it has hired them does indeed have the operator's licence. It can therefore claim back the vehicle from the impounder. That has the effect of circumnavigating the Government's legislation. Bearing in mind that the vehicles to which any value is attached are usually the ones which are hired out, it could mean that as many as 80 or 90 per cent of vehicles on hire may not have an operator licence. 1 am not saying that they do not, because most of them do, but the ones that do not can then be claimed back by the holder of the master lease, because he can say that he has no duty to ensure that there is an operator's licence.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I support the amendments. I will not make a long speech about them. Amendment No. 25 has been discussed in your Lordships' House many times. It really is time that this matter was resolved, because the traffic commissioners have a unique role to play, if they are allowed to play it. It is ridiculous that if there is legislation which allows vehicles to be impounded for doing something wrong, one can get round that by leasing them rather than owning them. That makes a mockery of the law. I fully support the amendments.
6 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we have had the opportunity to discuss this issue between Committee and Report. There did seem to be a conflict of evidence—perhaps I should put it that way—so I shall therefore read word for word the speaking note that I have been given.
Local authorities and planning authorities have a statutory right to object to goods operator licence applications. They are sent details of all applications in their area. They can object to a proposed operating centre on the environmental factors that result from the use of the land or the general suitability of the centre in terms of its size, parking arrangements and ingress/ egress on to the public highway. They also have a right of appeal to the Transport Tribunal against a traffic commissioner's decision. The traffic commissioners would like local authorities to take a more proactive role in the licensing process.
Traffic commissioners' powers are limited, when deciding on licence applications, to considering the operating centre itself, any private road leading to a nearby public road and the point of ingress and egress on to the public highway. If objections are received that are based on factors outside this scope, for example traffic problems on the wider road network, then the traffic commissioner is unable to consider them. So far, the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, and I are in agreement.
Although the traffic commissioners cannot consider the wider road network, the local authorities themselves have wide powers under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 to regulate traffic by means of

1009
traffic regulation orders. These can be used to prohibit, restrict or regulate the use of goods vehicles. In exercising these powers it is for the local authority to consider the needs of local residents, emergency services, local businesses and those who work in or visit the area. They can use these powers to balance the supply and demand for road space in the light of local needs and circumstances.
Local authorities can, and should, also use their planning powers to stop the opening of a new operating centre if the road network cannot take it. It is right that these powers should rest with local authorities rather than with traffic commissioners. Traffic commissioners are unlikely to have enough detailed knowledge of road traffic conditions to make decisions on the suitability of additional vehicles on the local road network. Pressure on the local road network can be caused by many other factors than an operating centre, and local authorities have the local knowledge to allow them to take these factors into account. We therefore see no reason to extend the traffic commissioners' powers in this way. I have details of the traffic commissioners' Annual Report for 2001–02 which I shall happily send to the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw.
Regarding Amendment No. 26, the owner of the vehicle detained by the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency can apply to a traffic commissioner for the return of the vehicle on the grounds that he or she did not know that the vehicle was being operated illegally. It is the matter of when a leasing company is to be taken to "know" that is at the heart of the matter. I have looked into the two cases which were mentioned, where impounded vehicles were apparently handed back to the leasing company owners. I am sorry to say that they were not straightforward.
One case involved three separate hearings. A leasing company leased a vehicle to an operator on the basis of a statement from that operator that he would operate the vehicle in accordance with the law. They made a number of efforts to find out if the operator held a licence. The matter had not been solved when the vehicle was impounded. At the first hearing a traffic commissioner refused the application for the return of the vehicle. The Transport Tribunal on appeal sent the case back for re-hearing. Another traffic commissioner then decided, in the light of the tribunal's guidance, and after reviewing the evidence, that the owners did not know that the vehicle was being operated illegally, and directed that the vehicle should be returned. However, she noted that the company had since become aware that licences could readily be checked on the department's electronic database of operators—the existence of the database is now widely known throughout the industry.
On the basis of the guidance given by the tribunal in this case, it seems fairly clear that turning a blind eye or not persisting in making normal inquiries will amount to knowledge for the purposes of the current legislation, and the vehicles of a hiring company that was to turn a blind eye would therefore be at risk. Furthermore, although it is ultimately a matter for the
1010
courts to decide, it does seem now that the existence of the database is becoming more widely known, and any company failing to make that one simple inquiry would have much explaining to do.
Perhaps I do not need to describe the second case, but I think that the conclusion is clear. The hiring and leasing industry has been very diligent in informing customers about operator licensing requirements and in carrying out voluntary checks of licences. If one hires a car, the hiring company invariably requires to see one's driving licence, though it has no obligation to do so. Since it is now well known that it is possible for the hiring company to check on the database, there is no reason why self-regulation, as we have at present, should not work. Therefore, the amendment should not be pressed.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. However, I find that his reply to Amendment No. 25 is not valid. When planning permission is given for an operating centre, it is not necessary to specify the type of vehicle that will use it. Someone applies for planning permission for vehicles to use an operating centre, but it is often not apparent the sort of vehicles that will use it. Specifying whether one will get a I 7-tonne fixed-wheel vehicle or a 32, 38 or 44-tonne artic is unnecessary.
The imposition by local authorities of traffic orders is lengthy and extremely difficult, and their enforcement by the police is almost non-existent. It must come almost at the bottom of the list of priorities for any police force. However, the traffic commissioners are available and know about local traffic conditions—that is why they are there. They certainly know a lot that local authority employers do not; for example, they know about the records of people who apply, what they have done before, who their managers are, and all sorts of relevant matters.
I will withdraw the amendment but I shall ask the Minister, before Third Reading, to explain why the very simple addition to traffic commissioners' responsibilities cannot be made. I have a feeling that it is more to do with the obduracy of certain officials in the department than with whether it can be done. Occasionally, we on these Benches say something sensible.
I accept what the Minister said about Amendment No. 26 if we now assume that the existence of the database is widely known among leasing companies. The ability to make a check is therefore available to anyone, and anyone who fails to make it deserves to have his vehicle impounded. I hope that the Transport Tribunal, if no one else, reads what the Minister and I have said in Hansard, and that in future the vehicles will not be returned. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 26 not moved.]
Clause 108 [Highways: snow and ice]:
Lord Berkeleymoved Amendment No. 27:
Page 48, leave out lines 35 to 37 and insert—

1011
""(1A) In particular, a highway authority is under a duty to ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that—

(a) safe passage along a highway is not endangered by snow and ice; and

(b) where the highway is in the vicinity of a railway, otherwise than where the railways crosses the highway on the same level, they take steps to constrain vehicles which use that section of highway from being able to depart from it so as to cause a hazard to the safe operation of the railway.

For the purposes of this subsection, 'railway' means a railway within the meaning given by section I l9A (12).""
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment is a second attempt. I suggest that it is an elegant way of extending the snow-plough clause, which, after all, was I believe responsible for changing the name of the Bill from the railways safety Bill to the Railways and Transport Safety Bill. I am sure that my noble friend will correct me if I am wrong.
The amendment is nothing to do with snow ploughs. It revisits why the railways should have to pay to keep cars on the road rather than on the railway. We debated that in Grand Committee, when the noble Baroness, Lady Scott, said that it was not fair that local authorities that were short of money should have to protect their roads that were next to railways to prevent cars and lorries from jumping on the railway lines. That argument is to do with ability to pay. Given the railways' financial situation, it could equally well be applied to them.
At the moment, we have a nice cosy arrangement of sharing the cost, set out in the lovely document, Managing the accidental obstruction of the railway by road vehicles. That cost is not insignificant at about £60 million in total. It seems unfair that the railways should have to pay half of that. One could argue that, leaving aside level crossings, if road vehicles land on the railways that is the fault of the road vehicles and the highways on which they run. It is up to the highways and the authorities, be they local authorities, the Highways Agency or anyone in between, to take steps to prevent such occurrences. That is why I tabled the amendment as an addition to the snow-plough clause. I beg to move.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, my intervention will be brief. I have a lot of sympathy for the principles that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, advocates. It would be right for any new form of regulation that is set in place to acknowledge the difficult position in which the newly agreed practice would put the heritage railways if it were applied to them.
Highways authorities and the railways receive enormous sums—both are largely funded by public money. Heritage railways receive no such support. Whatever does happen, heritage railways should be exempt from any pay arrangements that might involve them in "secondary consequences"; namely, something that someone does on a highway.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, very briefly, I was about to make exactly the same point as the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. Whatever regime is established for "commercial railway", it would be
1012
monstrous if the heritage railways had to pay for the repair and construction of road-bridges which happened to go over their railways. They do not receive any public subsidy; they struggle hard enough as it is, and they are an important part of the tourist industry. I hope that they can be exempted from whatever regime is established.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we have already exempted heritage railways—one example of low-speed railways—from several provisions of the Bill. I hear what the noble Lords, Lord Dixon-Smith and Lord Faulkner, say about bridges and low-speed railways; I will write to them on that subject.
However, I have difficulty with the amendment. It seems to presume that accidents can be prevented by the imposition of a duty on a highways authority or rail track operator. Duties do not prevent accidents. If a railway is responsible for a bridge, the fact that it has a duty to prevent trains coming off bridges onto roads does not mean that accidents are prevented.
Accidents are prevented by proper standards, by proper analysis of the risks at road/rail interfaces, and by taking action at the sites at which risks are high. That applies to highways authorities and to the railway infrastructure authorities. The agreement that has been reached between the highways authorities and the infrastructure authorities is that they will split the cost of safety measures 50:50.
Accidents can happen when approved safety barriers are in place. Traffic harriers were in place at the site of the Selby crash in February 2001; relevant standards were complied with, but the driver got his vehicle onto the line because he went on driving his vehicle after it left the road, to try to prevent it from toppling over.
A case like that cannot be dealt with by the duties provided in this amendment. No traffic measures that a local authority could take would prevent all incursions. We will continue to see that the standards for barriers and bridges and so on are as high as possible, but we cannot guarantee that we will avoid accidents and incidents when drivers behave irresponsibly. The amendment does not add anything; in fact, it goes some way to confusing the issue as between road and rail.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord McIntosh for that answer, especially for the heritage railway point. It is quite reasonable that train drivers should have a responsibility to keep the train on the track, but the Minister seems to suggest that they should also be responsible for keeping cars on the road next to the track. If the train drivers can keep the trains on track, as they usually do, the fact that many more cars land on railways than trains land on roads indicates that a 50:50 split is unfair. Nevertheless, I shall read carefully what my noble friend said and perhaps seek to have a meeting with him before Third Reading. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Berkeley Lord Berkeley moved Amendment No. 28:
After Clause 108. insert the following new clause—
"INDEPENDENT CROSS-MODAL TRANSPORT SAFETY BODY
The Secretary of State shall, within a year of the date on which this Act receives Royal Assent, publish proposals for the setting up of an independent cross-modal transport safety body."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment follows on from our discussions in Grand Committee about whether the Health and Safety Executive should or does have responsibility for roads. My noble friend argued that the Health and Safety Executive should not have responsibility for roads because it was not qualified to take such responsibility. He took us round the Caucasian Chalk Circle, quoting,
"everything shall be with those who are good for it".—[Official Report, 5/6/03; col. GC 276.]
I have not had a chance to look up Brecht's full works but I wonder what would be achieved if that quote applied to all legislation.
I understand that transport safety has grown in a slightly haphazard manner over the years. However, I believe that we need to consider the problem of transport safety one last time and the statistics of death rates per billion passenger kilometres. For air, the figure is zero; rail, 0.1; water, 0.5; bus and coach, 0.2; car, 2.9; cycle, 35; pedestrian, 47 and motor cycle and moped, 123. In 2001, 3,450 died in road accidents in Great Britain compared with five in plane accidents; four in accidents involving UK-registered merchant vessels and two in public transport flights subject to a UK air transport licence.
I believe that the Health and Safety Executive has a duty here to consider road accidents. I understand that the HSE believes that if enough people are at work on the road—let us face it, all those driving lorries and white vans are at work as are quite a few car drivers—it should be concerned as to whether it is fulfilling its duty under Clause 1 of the 1974 Act to secure,
"the health, safety and welfare of persons at work",
and,
"protecting persons other than persons at work against risks to health or safety arising out of or in connection with the activities of persons at work".
At present, what the Health and Safety Executive does and does not do has little logic. It goes back to a letter from the then Secretary of State for Employment, Mr Michael Foot, to Bill Simpson of the Health and Safety Commission dated 1975. I can go at some length into whether it covers building regulations but not safety of buildings; and as to ports, bridges at ports going under ships; or bridges between structures—we had an example in Ramsgate a few years ago—or dangerous goods by road, and a few other such things.
I shall not quote from the letter because it is four pages long. Yesterday, a Written Answer to Mr Chope from Mr Jamieson in another place (at col. 224W of Hansard) referred to the provision relating to fatigue for all safety critical workers including drivers. If the Health and Safety Executive is looking into the
1014
question of fatigue of train drivers, I suggest they should do the same for road drivers to try to prevent some of the 3,000 or so road deaths.
In December 1998 the Department for Transport issued a consultation document on transport safety asking for views. In June 2000 it issued a review of the issues raised. In reading that I believe the responses can best be described as, "Yes, there should be change but please leave us alone because it is too difficult". It concerns grouping safety standards and adding other modes of transport to the Health and Safety Commission/Executive responsibilities; accident investigation, standard setting and enforcement.
Accident investigation is covered fully in the Bill. It is very good to hear that in addition to what is proposed for railways, the chief inspectors of marine, air and railways meet regularly and will do so on a formal basis. That is to be welcomed but there are many other things besides that. For that reason I propose this amendment suggesting that the Government may bring forward, as part of the 10 year plan review, proposals for bringing together investigations, regulations, common enforcement policies, even manslaughter rules, but in particular cross modes. Let us not forget that in Sweden they have started something called "vision zero" policies towards zero road deaths. We have 3,450 fewer deaths to achieve. I urge the Government to take this problem out of the "too difficult" box and progress what they started five years ago through a White Paper or similar document. I beg to move.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I am rather perplexed by this amendment and by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. He made a perfectly valid proposal on why the Health and Safety Commission should have responsibilities with regard to roads. However, the amendment says nothing of the kind. It seeks to bring in an,
"independent cross-modal transport safety body".
What an awful combination of words. No doubt one would then have a committee which would require funding and staff and would ask for powers. It would go off to EU conferences and probably go round the world attending intercontinental cross-modal transport safety conferences. I am afraid that this is utter rubbish. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, would make a wonderful chairman of it if it ever came into being.
We have the Department for Transport, the Secretary of State and the various Ministers responsible and answerable to Parliament. I do not believe that this body would add anything, although the noble Lord made one valid point about the responsibility of the Health and Safety Commission, but that has nothing to do with the amendment.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the rest of the quotation from the coda of the Caucasian Chalk Circle, which I failed to give, says that everything shall go to those who are good for it, thus the cart to the good driver that it is well driven. I hope that Hansard will correct me if I have remembered that defectively.

1015
The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, recognised that we have established arrangements to permit closer coordination between the chief inspectors for air and marine accidents and the newly appointed chief inspector for rail accidents. The recently formed Board of Transport Accident Investigators will further assist in the promotion and sharing of best practice among cross-modal transport safety investigators. That seems to me a very proper answer to the issue raised by my noble friend Lord Berkeley.
However, he wants to go further. He wants an independent cross-modal transport safety body. From his speech it sounds as though he wants it to replace the existing transport safety bodies for individual modes of transport. If he is to justify that, he has to convince the House that there is a common element to transport safety regulation that outweighs the need for specific skills. I very much doubt it. Even if there were any significant elements that would require them to be merged into a single body, any change could be hugely disruptive. I do not think somehow we are going to accept the amendment.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that reply and for the comments from the noble Viscount, Lord Astor, which were most interesting. It is a challenge and a matter that will need some study. It will not happen tomorrow. However, I still believe that it would be interesting for the Government to take forward their transport safety consultation. That will probably take much longer than the time available before Third Reading, but on that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Fire Services Bill
6.24 p.m.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Bill would confer powers for Ministers to fix or modify the conditions of service, including pay, of fire brigade members, and give directions to fire authorities on the use or disposal of property or facilities. However, before I describe the general principles behind the Bill, I hope it will be helpful to your Lordships if I first say a few words about the current position on the long-running pay dispute between the Fire Brigades Union and their employers.
Noble Lords will be aware that on 12th June the Fire Brigades Union recall conference voted to accept the employers' offer of a 16 per cent pay rise over two-and-a-half years, linked to modernisation of the fire service. This is a very positive development following over 12 months of negotiations between the parties, during which the public have had to endure 15 days of national strikes, with emergency fire cover being provided by the Armed Forces.
I am sure that noble Lords from all sides of the House will wish to join me in welcoming the decision of the Fire Brigades Union. It has always been the
1016
Government's preference for the two sides to reach a negotiated settlement. This is so that they can move forward in partnership to help deliver a modern fire service, which can present fires from starting in the first place and save more lives when responding to fires that occur.
In the light of the decision taken by Fire Brigades Union, noble Lords may ask why the Government intend to proceed with this Bill. It is a fair question and I shall set out our reasons.
First, the Government's preference is not to have to use the powers that the Bill would confer. The F BU's decision last Thursday makes it much less likely that we would need to use them. But I draw the attention of noble Lords to the fact that the pay offer to which the FBU has signed up is dependent on negotiations and consultations on a number of key issues being completed and, where necessary, ratified by the appropriate bodies over the next few months.
These issues include the agreement of a new pay structure by 31st October 2003; a new pay formula for 2005 and 2006 to be agreed by 31st July 2003; evaluation of the relative job weights of fire-fighters and control room staff to be completed by 31st July 2003; revisions to the so-called "Grey Book", the document setting out detailed conditions of service, to be agreed by 31st October 2003; a review of the current procedure for settling disputes to be completed by 31st October 2003; and proposals for the revision of the National Joint Council's constitution to he made and ratified before the end of this year.
The pay increases for stage two, which is November 2003, and stage three, which is July 2004, are subject to the completion of all the negotiations and consultations referred to in the agreement and, where appropriate, ratification by the fire service national employers, the Fire Brigades Union and the Government, and verification by the Audit Commission that the intended benefits, including the savings and the various national changes, are being derived locally.
This is quite a list of work to do over the next few months, with specific target dates to be achieved. Many of the things which I have referred to have changed little over the past 25 years. While the decision of the Fire Brigades Union is to be welcomed, and while we very much hope that negotiations on the outstanding issues can be satisfactorily completed, I believe that noble Lords will agree that we must consider the possibility—however remote—that implementation of the reforms contained in the deal could be delayed or put at risk. There have been other occasions during this dispute where agreement has seemed likely, only for hopes to be dashed at the last moment.
Against that background, we want to be prepared for all eventualities so that, if necessary, we still have the ability to draw a line under this dispute and, most importantly, ensure that the public is properly protected. That is why we propose to proceed with the Bill.

1017
For the avoidance of doubt the stage one increase, which is from last November 2002, should be paid by the end of July—next month. The Bill is a time-limited long stop. We do not want to use the powers in the Bill—we hope that we do not need to—but, in the light of experience, it is prudent to have them available. If further problems arise during the forthcoming negotiations and those dates are not met, the public will rightly claim that we should have known better and been prepared. They will say to us, "You could see this coming, yet you did nothing about it". We have done something: we have brought forward the Bill, which, I might add, has been approved by the elected House of Parliament.
Before discussing the details, I wish to refer to the human rights issues contained in the 12th report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. It states that the Bill,
"as it stands at present gives rise to a significant risk of a violation of Article 6 of the European Social Charter and of Article 8 of the ILO Convention No. 151".
Article 6 of the European Social Charter requires states to take certain steps to ensure the effectiveness of the right to bargain collectively. Article 8 of the ILO Convention No. 151 states that settlement,
"shall be sought … through negotiation between the parties".
The Joint Committee's report acknowledges that both provisions are subject to various exemptions where there is a public emergency or where collective bargaining has broken down.
I can assure the House that the Government would exercise the powers that the Bill would confer in respect of conditions of services only if we considered it necessary to do so in order to maintain or enhance public safety; and if negotiations had failed to produce an agreement. For example, if the detailed negotiations that I mentioned previously failed to produce agreement, we think that it would be appropriate to consider using the powers. It has take more than 12 months to get this far. We could not stand by if there were further breakdowns that either threatened to lead to a resumption of industrial action or delayed the changes to the Fire Service that we believe will deliver improved community safety. As I said earlier, we hope that those circumstances will not arise.
Again, I draw noble Lords' attention to the fact that the powers in the Bill are time limited to two years so the issue will not be around for ever. If the powers in the Bill are not activated after two years, they fall. They cannot be resurrected by order or any such mechanism; a new Act of Parliament would be needed. That is what the sunset clause means. In that respect, I hope that the concerns of the Joint Committee on Human Rights can be satisfactorily addressed.
I hope that it will help noble Lords if briefly I set out the Government's general strategy and vision for the Fire Service. The reform of public services, including the Fire Service, is one of the Government's key priorities. We have already introduced some elements of modernisation. We hope to repeal Section 19 of the
1018
1947 Act, which would remove the need for the Secretary of State to be involved in changes in numbers of fire stations and appliances—the minutiae. That change is contained in the Local Government Bill, which is before your Lordships' House. There will of course be consultation on integrated risk management plans.
The Bill is a temporary measure designed to deal with the dispute and its immediate aftermath, not the long term. The long-term vision for the Fire Service will be set out in our White Paper, to be published shortly—I mean shortly, but I cannot be more precise. The White Paper will set out comprehensive and coherent proposals for a new framework for the Fire Service that we believe will give it a new sense of purpose and prevent the kind of stalemate that has prolonged this industrial dispute. The White Paper will articulate the Government's vision for the Fire Service. It will set out the reforms that we have in mind to ensure that the service is modern, well-managed and efficient, serving the needs of the community and able to respond to the challenges of the 21st century. We intend setting out the legal, institutional and managerial changes required to deliver that vision.
I shall now discuss the powers in the Bill, which simply confers two powers. First, the Secretary of State would be able to make orders to fix or modify conditions of service, including pay. The powers would be similar to those in the Fire Services Act 1947 as originally enacted. Those powers could include some elements of modernisation.
The Secretary of State is required to consult the negotiating body—currently the National Joint Council—on his proposals and consider its comments before making any such order. The Deputy Prime Minister has also said that he will consult his statutory advisors, the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council. Orders would be subject to the negative resolution procedure of Parliament.
The second area of the Bill's powers gives the Secretary of State the ability to give directions to fire authorities about the use or disposal of property and equipment. This is primarily aimed at ensuring fire authority assets—stations and fire appliances paid for by the public—are available to those providing emergency fire cover in the event of a strike. But the powers could be used for some modernisation; for example, to provide joint control rooms, or require that resources are distributed on a risk assessment basis.
The Secretary of State is required to consult those who might be affected by his direction, or their representatives, as he thinks fit. The sunset clause means that the powers of the Bill are time limited to two years. This was agreed in another place as an addition to the Bill. This demonstrates that the Bill deals with the current dispute which we hope is over. Longer-term strategy will be set out in the White Paper, and we will seek legislation to implement it at the earliest opportunity.
As I have said, this Bill has been sent from the elected House of Parliament. I have detailed the dates in the agreement to which I have already referred.

1019
There is more than one date of the 31st of July on more than one subject and more than one on the 31st October. Following my opening speech, we have an amendment that would delay the Bill for six months. The juxtaposition of that amendment with the dates I have mentioned, effectively means this amendment completely negates the Bill. It wrecks the Bill and it would be misleading to claim this amendment as a technical delay.
I will be very interested to hear what my noble friend will offer as the alternative if problems arise and the Bill is not on the statute book. We need to hear a decent reason for effectively refusing to consider a Bill sent by the elected House to your Lordships' House. We are a revising Chamber, not a wrecking Chamber. In this House, unlike another place, there are no less than three stages during which to amend a Bill. I still cannot get used to the idea of amendments on Third Reading, although I admit that the Government make use of this occasionally. Do we decline to give a Second Reading to a Bill from another place when it can be amended at Committee stage, on Report and Third Reading? If we do, I say to my noble friend that that is outrageous. We would have a huge task explaining it to another place if we carried this amendment. If my noble friend wants to sign the death knell to the current arrangements in your Lordships' House, this is the way to go about it.
Knocking the Bill on its head for six months when we have agreed deadlines and dates with the trade union, and providing the Government with no long stop if things go wrong, is not very professional in industrial relations terms. If my former tutor, Alan Flanders and my former professor Hugh Clegg were about now, they would be taking my side and not that of my noble friend.
In conclusion, 1 would stress that we value the work of the Fire Service. There is much that is good about it, and we want to build on those strengths. It does need to change, so that it can be more effective and so that firelighters can have the opportunity to have more rewarding and flexible careers—and, most importantly, so that it can save even more lives. By accepting the employers' offer, the Fire Brigades Union has taken the first step along the road to change. We commend the union for that, and we will play our part by showing the leadership that the Fire Service deserves when we set out our vision for the future in the forthcoming White Paper.
While it is prudent to proceed with the Bill for the reasons that I gave earlier, it is a backstop. We hope that we will never have to see it, handle it, or use it. It is not our intention to use it. In light of that, I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Rooker.)
6.41 p.m.
Lord McCarthyrose to move, as an amendment to the Motion that the Bill be now read a second time, to leave out "now" and at end insert "this day six months".
1020
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am not concerned, and no one who supports the amendments is concerned with traipsing over the settlement, saying who is right, who is wrong, why it took 12 months, and so on. It is much more important to move on. I am the last person who would want to traipse over the settlement, because it is arguable that it is my fault.
Some 25 years ago, I was responsible for the formula that settled the last Fire Service dispute; the Upper Quartile of the Manual Workers (Male) Index. Although it gave us peace for 25 years, it blew up at the end. It is possible to argue that those of us who were concerned with that should have foreseen that it would last only for 25 years, and we should have said that we wanted it to be periodically reviewed. We did not do that, and in a sense I feel a little guilty about that. I do not want to traipse over the settlement; everyone makes mistakes. I want to talk about the process.
I am asked why we are doing this by amendment. The true, real and substantive reasons will emerge as I proceed. The quick answer is that what we want to do with this Bill cannot be done by amendment. We want the Government to go away and think again about the imposition of what is not arbitration. It pretends to be arbitration; it is not arbitration; it is an imposed settlement. The Government should pause to consider the purpose.
Some might question what happens if it all goes wrong in six months' time. Well, if it all goes wrong in six months' time, the Bill will come in. That would be a wonderful reason to introduce an imposition. I will come back to that later on, but in general terms, those are the two reasons.
Finally, for my preliminary chat, I want to declare an interest; not a financial interest, but an interest that the whole House should share. We all have an interest in clarity; this is not clear at all; we all have an interest in equity; this Bill is not fair; and we all have an interest in common sense. The Bill at this stage is an insane Bill. It is a botch-up. We have seen quite a few botch-ups; this is another one. It is halfway between a cock-up and a conspiracy.
It would be much better, and easier for industry, and the attitude of the unions, the Fire Brigades Union and the employers, if the Government buried this altogether. It would be better if they took it away and thought about it, and came back after a pause of six months with a Bill, the broad outlines of which I will come to now.
Why do I say that it is not transparent? The Minister and the Secretary of State have repeatedly said, and the Secretary of State said three times on 8th May, that the legislation was based on the 1947 Act, which provided for arbitration. No, it is not. He said that it,
"provided for arbitration largely because everyone recognised the importance of fire and other emergency services".—[Official Report, Commons, 8/5/03; col. 860.]
No, they did not. The 1947 Act had nothing to do with that. No, no, no.
If we read the introduction to the 1947 Bill by the late Chuter Ede, we find something common in those days that the Government have forgotten about.

1021
People wanted to extend the ambit of collective bargaining. They were afraid that, once we had nationalised the Fire Service for the period of the war, as we had to do in 1941, changing it from a part-time service run by 366 local authorities, those local authorities would not deal with it properly, if we gave it back to them. In particular, they could not be trusted to carry out national agreements on terms and conditions in all parts of the Fire Service. That was made clear by the Home Secretary at the time. It was made clear that we had to have a reserve power.
Those of us who go back that far will remember that reserve powers were very common in those days. I am sure that Flanders and Clegg knew that; that was what they lectured on. The industrial disputes tribunal was one; the issues procedure was another; the wages councils, which we extended in 1945, were another one; and the fair wages clauses were another. In those days, people believed that collective bargaining was a good thing and that, if workers negotiated an agreement and could not be sure that the employers would carry out that agreement, the state should come in and enforce the negotiated agreement. That was generally accepted.
It was accepted by the Conservative Party. When they abolished this thing, they told the Labour Party, then in opposition, "We don't think that the employers will act like this. We think that they have learnt their lesson. They will carry out the results of national bargaining, whether or not there is legal enforcement". The Labour Party said, "Yes. Probably, the employers have learnt now. We don't this any more". That is what is was about. Nobody said that it was about independent arbitration, because it was not. We were imposing settlements on employers. That is not arbitration.
The Oxford English Dictionary says that arbitration is a situation in which the parties agree that the settlement of an issue shall be done by one who, the parties agree, shall, in fact, try the case and decide it. The parties decide to refer their claim to the third party that they have selected, and they define the terms of reference. That is independent arbitration. That is what ACAS does. It is not what the Bill does. The Bill gives the Secretary of State as many bites of the cherry as he wants. He can interfere, as he has already has, in the negotiation process. If I understood what I read in the papers, he twice prevented a settlement. He was active among the employers, and then he bobbed in and created a separate mediation theme. I say nothing against the Bain commission, but the chairman was not chosen by the parties and no terms of reference were agreed. Finally, the Secretary of State says that he wants to enact something that will enable him to enforce by law the same settlement that he would not allow the parties to divert from in the first place. He has three bites at the cherry. In 1947, no one would have thought that that was anything but a farce.
It is not easy to be a negotiator on the government side in public sector industrial relations. There are two phrases that I use to describe the situation. The first is the problem of the ghost at the bargaining table. There
1022
is always a ghost at the bargaining table. On the union side, it is the members. They are outside the room, but they are making demands. On the employers' side, it is the Government. They are outside the room, and they may be on the phone, but they are making demands. It is difficult for the negotiators, who are not really in charge—it is not their money. They must settle with their members and be as co-operative as they can, because of the ghosts at the bargaining table. It is particularly difficult for the Government because the public expect them to do three different things. And that is the second phrase sometimes used—the Pooh-Bah dilemma of the three-hat syndrome.
It comes to this. The Government, with the Treasury watching, have to keep the settlement down. But the Government, with the public watching, have to avoid industrial action—because the public do not want that. However, one the whole, the public are rather fond of many of the people involved in the dispute. They rather like nurses, paramedics, policemen and firemen; they do not want them pushed down. They want them to get a fair crack of the whip. So here is the poor old Government with their three different hats. What are they to do? Should they be on the Treasury side and be in favour of industrial peace? They could not say, like an employer, "Go out and have a strike" because the public would say, "What about the graveyards?" or whatever. The Government have to try to give justice—or some kind of justice—to the workers.
We have found one way only of doing it; we have found one way only through the wood. We must have a form of independent arbitration. It could be a pay review; it could be ex parte arbitration; it could be just mediation, followed by arbitration—or perhaps not. But there must be some independent person or persons able to say what they think is fair. One can wander around the world or read books—for example, Alan Flanders—and it is said over and over again: there must be some independent assessment. Otherwise, in the long run the Government are in an impossible position, especially if the workers are well thought of and especially if the service is totally funded and there is no room for self-financing productivity deals. And if the Government think that they have one of those they are even more simple than I thought they were!
Therefore, there must be some form of independent arbitration. One can go through this Bill and not find anything which remotely resembles independent arbitration. What happens is that the Secretary of State appears and has a ghost at the bargaining table in the first place. If there is to be any overall assessment of the issues, the pattern is that he sets up his own inquiry. If he does not like the results, he takes action under this Bill and forces through any settlement he likes. I call that a reactionary system of industrial relations.
I do not believe that any student of industrial relations would say that it was anything else. It goes against all collective wisdom that we have had in the settlement of public sector disputes. We are told—the Minister mentioned this—that it is probably contrary

1023
to international law. At least, that could be the opinion of the relevant committee. Most importantly, it could act as a precedent.
In my opinion, the Government were so happy to use the 1947 Act—I do not believe those responsible had ever read the Act, although I could not say precisely what they did—because it seemed to provide a precedent. It did not really provide a precedent, but it seemed to. Once an actual Bill is on the statute book, one has one's precedent.
The doctors rumble away, but if the doctors were to say that they rejected every settlement offer put forward by the Minister, what is different about them? I do not say that the Government will do this; I say let them tell me the difference. Why should there not be something like this for the doctors or nurses or paramedics or any other fully-funded service that no one wants to see using industrial action? Of course, people would say that we do not have this problem with the police. But the police have got what I should like to see these people have—or some form of it. They have got pay review.
What we are asking the Government—it cannot be done by a series of amendments—is to allow a short period when the Bill sits on the shelf. The Government can then go out and consult and determine what form of independent third-party intervention they would most like to see. Thai is sensible. That is the way through the wood. The Government shut the road through the wood many years ago. Weather and rain have undone it again. One would never know that there was once a way through the wood. The old lost road through the wood must be found again. I beg to move.
Moved, as an amendment to the Motion that the Bill be now read a second time, to leave out "now" and at end insert "this day six months".—(Lord McCarthy.)
6.55 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, we on these Benches do not welcome the Bill; indeed, we deplore it. Were it not for the obvious reluctance to refuse a Second Reading to a Bill passed by the elected House, we would wish it to be halted in its tracks tonight. We have taken the matter seriously, and we did not need the strictures of the Minister to do so. We realise the seriousness of opposing at this stage a Bill that has come from another place.
Instead, we have tabled an amendment to the Motion for Second Reading. I would have described the Bill as a sledgehammer, and my first version of the amendment regretted the use of the sledgehammer of legislation applied to a collective bargaining procedure. I was told, inevitably, that that was not how things are done here, so my amendment is in more measured language.
I appreciate that I cannot move my amendment at this point, but I have tabled an amendment to add to the Second Reading Motion that,
"this House regrets that Her Majesty's Government have decided to take the extreme step of introducing legislation as an alternative to collective bargaining procedures in the fire service".
1024
We were encouraged by the Minister to deal with the Bill at the three forthcoming stages by way of amendment. However, the Bill seems close to unamendable—I say "close to" because I do not want to preclude the possibility of tabling amendments myself, and I am sure that if I said that it was wholly unamendable, I would be teased about that in a week's time.
I cannot begin to imagine the frustration that Ministers have experienced during the current—almost the past—firefighters' dispute. But then again, I cannot begin to imagine the frustration of the employers, who are not actually free to reach a settlement on their own. Their every move is supervised and they are not holding the purse strings, which must have been more than a little restricting. It has occurred to me that this dispute has been the political-industrial relations version of "three in a marriage". We are of course in the middle of proceedings of a Bill designed to "free up local government". Since irony does not always work well on the printed page, for the benefit of Hansard I shall point out that that is ironical.
We deplore the overriding of free bargaining and the centralising nature of the Bill. That is not to say that we support the way in which the FBU has acted—but that is not the point of the Bill tonight. Like the Minister, we welcome the union's decision and the likelihood of a settlement and, like the Minister, we very much admire the work that firefighters do and will he faced with in future.
However, it must be a bad principle to rely on legislation to deal with a specific dispute, and a bad principle for central government to intervene in negotiations, and in so heavy-handed a way. As a matter of psychology, how does the Bill play with those who support the settlement? My suspicion and fear is that it will lead to further polarisation. If it does that, it will play directly into the hands of those who are already at the opposite pole. I wonder, too. how it will play in future negotiations in other sectors. Will it not be said, "Well, the Government haven't produced legislation, so they're not really serious"? I make that as a serious point.
We on these Benches have supported the modernisation of the Fire Service as recommended by Bain, whose executive summary stated:
"We therefore conclude that a fresh approach is required. This must start with a lead from the Government".
Some lead. I am sure that someone would say, "Some lead, some government".
It is not as if the alternatives have been exhausted. What about a secret postal ballot of all FBU members? What about independent arbitration? What about compulsory independent arbitration? I am mindful of what the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, said in that regard—that there must be scope for arbitration.
We do not support the Bill but we have some questions for the Government. How will the Bill, when enacted, affect the right to strike, if at all? What is its relationship with the Local Government Bill, which is set to repeal most of Section 19 of the Fire Services Act

1025
1947, which concerns the Secretary of State's functions, and part of the 1959 Act, which concerns the Secretary of State's powers? What happens if the Local Government Bill is not passed until after this Bill is enacted, or is not passed at all? Is it all irrelevant?
The Explanatory Notes state at paragraph 5:
"The Bill has no effect on the powers of the National Assembly for Wales and no other particular effect in Wales".
Will the Minister translate that in view of Clause 2(7), which states that the Bill extends to Wales? It may be that what is being said is that the National Assembly had no powers in the first place so the measure does not have any effect. When the Explanatory Notes refer to the Bill having no particular effect in Wales, they may mean no different effect in Wales, but it is a bit puzzling.
I am aware that there are pressures on time tonight so I may return to those questions without receiving oral answers at this stage. However, I have two particular questions to which I should be glad to receive answers tonight. The first concerns the sunset clause, of which the Minister made great play. It was accepted by the Government, having come from a Back-Bench Labour Member in another place, and provides that no order can be made more than two years after commencement. But it does not seem to mean that an order, once made, ceases to have effect after two years. So is it truly a sunset clause?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, it is a sunset clause; there is no argument about that. It is a general principle in English law that action taken before the repeal of legislation authorising that action is not affected by the repeal of the legislation. If an order were made, it would not fall under the terms of the sunset clause. The point about the sunset clause is that if an order is not made within two years there will be no power to make one as the relevant Act will no longer exist. The Act will be off the statute book.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, that was precisely my point. The order cannot be made after the two-year period but if the order is made before then it stays. It hovers on the horizon. The effect of the order will remain after the end of the two-year period. The Minister has confirmed that.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I refer to the part of the Bill that gives the power to rescind the order after the two-year period, if one has been made. We do not know what circumstances will arise. If the order has been made, and the Act has been invoked—which is what we do not want to do—clearly there has been an incident and the Secretary of State has had to take certain action. We cannot say that at the end of the two-year period that action will stop because we do not know the relevant circumstances. However, one would need the power to rescind the order at some time after the end of the two-year period.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, I do not think that the Minister and I disagree about the matter. Of course,
1026
there is a power to rescind an order. It is a power not a requirement. I cannot immediately think how one could phrase a requirement in the circumstances. I thank the Minister for that immediate response. I did not expect to receive a response for about another hour.
My other question concerns the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. The Minister mentioned its reference to Article 6 of the European Social Charter and to Article 8 of the ILO Convention 151 and said that the Government regarded the Bill as compatible with both articles. As I understood it, the Minister said that the application of the Bill, when enacted, will meet the exemptions. The National Joint Council asked whether the Bill itself met the exemptions. In a sense, that is a similar point. The Government are saying, "Trust us. The way we deal with it will meet the issue".
The Library research paper introduces the Bill by saying that it would,
"allow an imposed solution to the continuing fire dispute".
In football parlance, it may be a result, but I question whether it is a solution. We on these Benches do not believe that an imposed solution is a real solution.
7.5 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I urge the Government not to proceed with the Bill. I wonder why it should now be thought necessary. I was not impressed by the reasons given by the Minister.
The union has reached a settlement. I have seen a copy of the agreement. It provides for not only the staged pay deal, which will bring the members' earnings up to £25,000 per year in three stages—not an enormous amount of money for a job that demands skill and involves hazards—but also a pay formula for the future. There is a section dealing with integrated risk management plans, which fire authorities are required to produce, and a section on duty systems. Moreover, both sides of the National Joint Council recognise that fire fighters are now placed in the associate, professional and technical occupational classification in the Government's new earnings survey, which I understand means a great deal to the fire fighters.
We know that the recent delegate conference of the union voted three to one in favour of the agreement on the recommendation of the leadership. However, it is clear from press reports that it was not an easy win for the leadership. Resentment and dissatisfaction had been growing within the service and not all sections were happy to go along with the leadership's recommendation. I believe that that was particularly true in London, but it may also have applied to other areas.
The dispute was long and for much of the time attracted a high level of public support. Furthermore, the members on strike behaved reasonably and responsibly. In the event of the possibility of fire threatening lives, they left their picket lines. There was no question of their putting lives at risk on account of the dispute. Why, therefore, do the Government want

1027
this Bill, which gives them power to impose settlements? Admittedly, the Bill contains a clause that limits its life—the sunset clause. But why introduce the Bill now when most of the issues have been resolved and the Government apparently have a settlement with which they can live?
The union has asked that the Bill should not pass. I have received a letter from the FBU, which states:
"We believe that the resolution to the pay dispute now means that the Government's Fire Services Bill, which would allow the imposition of a pay settlement on the Fire Service, is even more unnecessary and unjustified. I therefore hope that the Government will decide not to continue with this piece of erroneous legislation".
It is signed by Andy Gilchrist.
Although it may not be the Government's intention, the Bill seems to represent an attempt to humiliate the union. That is how it will appear to the sections of the membership who were unhappy with the agreement, which could make matters more difficult for the union leadership in future discussions to be held within the scope of the agreement.
I am surprised by the Minister's comments, since I know that he has been an active trade unionist and knows how much the trade unions value free collective bargaining. The Bill seeks to undermine free collective bargaining, the NJC and the union leadership, and allows the Minister to dictate terms and conditions at a time when the co-operation of the workforce is necessary to put into operation the procedures outlined in the Bill, particularly the consultative procedures.
The Bill will undermine the leadership and make co-operation much more difficult. That really will not do. I understand the point that the Bill has been passed by the elected House. It is surely still open to us to urge the Government to think again about the Bill and to say, "Please do not go ahead with it. We think that it will be harmful and not at all to the benefit of good industrial relations in the future".
7.10 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am the third Member on the Back Benches in this House—this makes all three—who is wholly unable to support the Bill. The convention being that on Second Reading we do not turn down a Government Bill, save in wholly exceptional circumstances, I ride by convention, but I want the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, to understand that I merely defer to convention and that I am totally opposed to the Bill. What is a sunset clause, for a start? It is a sword of Damocles to dangle over those workmen, so that if they do not toe the Government line—the imposed resolution of the Government—the sword drops.
That to me is anathema. To put workmen in that position when there is no national emergency is anathema. I do not believe that any government of any party should ever do it unless there is an emergency. I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, probably feels much the same at heart, because he asked the noble Lord, "Well, what are we to do?".
1028
What are we to do now that we have got these changes? We have got an accommodation at the moment. Towards the end of July, it should work. Then there are the other stages—I shall not go through them all—but the assumption is that with the good offices of the TUC, and it has given its good offices, and of ACAS, which has also given its good offices, industrial relations shall virtually settle down. If they do not, any government at any time, at the drop of a hat, can invoke Order in Council legislation. It was done in the war; it was done in emergency situations. The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, shakes his head, but when we came back after the war, we found three large green books full of emergency legislation, which governed practically everything. That is the last thing in the world that one wants, but in our flexible society, it is a sensible way to deal with what truly is an emergency situation. There is no reason at all why, if, for example, there were a terrorist attack and the firemen were on strike and remained on strike, the substance of a Bill such as this should not be dealt with by Order in Council.
Again, I think that this is such an insult to the firemen. Let us suppose that there were a terrorist attack—we are probably going to get one; it is no use pretending that we will not. Can you imagine that those firemen will not do their duty by their country? I do not. I believe that they will all turn up irrespective of politics or union considerations. I reckon that they would all turn out. The attitude of the Government to assume that they would not is desperately insulting. I understand why the Bill had to be introduced on 21st March, in the light of the Statement the day before in another place, when the sense of the House then was, "for heaven's sake, yes, but let us see whether we cannot resolve the matter without resort to government-imposed terms and conditions".
In those wholly exceptional circumstances—and they were; there is no need to go through them all, including the Armed Forces and the Scots Guards not being able go and having to do fire duty—the Government were entitled at that time to think in terms of this sort of legislation. However, it is apparent, from the comments of my right honourable friend Mr David Davis and the Deputy Prime Minister in that debate, that they did not wish to use the legislation. They hoped that it would not be necessary.
The matter that astounds me is, now that we have reached the state of affairs that the Minister has explained, including various stages and so on, why is there a need to bring the Bill before this House in order that it may be approved and passed into statute? Why do they not leave the matter alone? The Bill is wholly directed against the fire services and their members—whether they are union members or not, although they all are. Is there any government policy on how to deal with strikes in the general public sector? Has any thought been given to the matter—by any party? I do not know. As yet, I know of no such policy of any party. But it is the Government who matter and who are in the driving seat. We have this problem of strikes in the public sector. It is a problem of general

1029
application that causes substantial damage, discomfort and misery to the country—and there is the threat of more to come.
This type of imposed Government decree, ad hoc, against a single service—the fire service—in circumstances where there is no emergency, is wholly unacceptable. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy—I do not usually agree with much that he says—that there must be some form of independent arbitration to deal with this situation. One cannot proceed—no government should proceed, and if the Conservatives were in power I would say the same—by a form of ad hoc, imposed decree to resolve terms and conditions of employment disputes. The country cannot run in that way. There is truly no excuse for the Government wanting to hold the power in reserve.
I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and share her regret; I really feel that the matter is one for regret. I share her reservations. That is about all that one may do on this occasion.
The real problem about the Bill is that it is going to be a monumental waste of time and resources, because the Long Title specifies fire services. There is no way in which the Long Title can be extended to include all public services or designated public services. If it is not possible to amend the Bill to deal with the general concept that there must be some form of mandatory arbitral procedure, independent of government, that binds the Government and the parties, what is the object of the Bill? We cannot amend it in that way.
I want to mention one point that is relevant to my objection. It is no time for repetition. The relevant history, problems, devastation and misery occasioned by disproportionate action in our public services, at the behest of the trade unions in those services, has already received consideration on both occasions in the passage of the Public Services (Disruption) Bill, approved on the last occasion on which it went through this House. Fire brigade services were only included as an amendment on that second occasion.
The discussions that we had are relevant to the concept that I advance—it has already been advanced by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy—that the only way to deal with the problem is for the Government, as a matter of policy, to agree to set up some independent, mandatory arbitral arrangement, such as the CAC, whose awards should be binding on government. Until that is done, this ad hoc disposal by complex provisions, albeit with sunset clauses, hardly mitigates the insult to the working people involved and the ineptitude as a means of resolving trade disputes.
7.25 p.m.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I submit to those noble Lords who have done the Fire Service the honour of attending this debate three main submissions for supporting the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord McCarthy to pause for six months.
The amendment finds precedents in the past twenty-five years; I shall not list them. I preface my comments by saying that no one can pretend that the Bill is
1030
receiving the legislative attention it deserves. True, it was passed through the procedures of the elected House, for which I have the greatest respect. But the Government guillotined it into a few hours, and there were protests. The Bill is time limited, in the sense of a sunset clause for two years, but orders made under the Bill in those two years are revoked only if the Government choose in their discretion to do so. There is no case for this legislation to be rushed through in the interim period before the White Paper and the big Bill.
I am not arguing for the employers; I am not arguing for the union; I am arguing for the integrity and the safety of the settlement dated 13th June.
The first of my three submissions is that the Bill provides the Government with powers use of which will lead them inevitably to a breach of international law by which the United Kingdom is bound on workers' and trade union rights. The instruments are Convention 151 of the International Labour Organisation, an agency of the United Nations, and articles 5 and 6 of the Council of Europe's European Social Charter. The Minister gave his own account of those sources—he will want to look again at Hansard to see how he put it.
In the words of the leading authority, Professor Valticos, articles 7 and 8 of ILO Convention 151 prescribe,
"the procedures for determining terms and conditions of service of public employees",
as follows:
"They comprise negotiation between the public authorities and public employees' organisations or 'other methods' which allow public employees to participate in such determination. The settlement of disputes should take place through negotiation between the parties or through independent and impartial machinery such as mediation, conciliation and arbitration".
What my noble friend Lord McCarthy has said about such third-party intervention as essential for the stability of the settlement is quite clear.
The Joint Committee on Human Rights considered the convention in its 8th Report on 11th April. The committee answered the Government's main argument that the Government had been seeking to get a solution by collective negotiation in its letter to the Deputy Prime Minister in this way:
"However, the Bill would not restrict the use of the power to make orders to circumstances in which collective bargaining has been attempted and has failed to produce a satisfactory result after a reasonable time. It therefore seems possible that an order could be made in circumstances which would give rise to a violation of Article 8 of ILO Convention No. 151".
In this case, collective bargaining has not failed. We have a settlement. The case under the European Social Charter is even clearer: the states parties agree to promote the settlement of terms and conditions by means of collective agreements and to promote the use of appropriate machinery for the conciliation and voluntary arbitration for settlement of disputes. The Government's reply to that is that the charter permits restrictions in the case of emergency, public interest, public health or morals. However, in its letter to my

1031
right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister, Mr Prescott, the Joint Committee on Human Rights wrote:
"The Committee accepts that orders made under the Bill might be justifiable on the ground of public interest and public health. However, the Bill would not restrict the use of the power to make orders to circumstances in which there is a public emergency or collective bargaining has failed to produce a satisfactory result. It is therefore possible that an order could be made in circumstances which would not be justifiable under Article 6 of the European Social Charter".
Everything that we have heard tonight shows that it may be possible—indeed, it is probable—that any orders made would be in that category. I know of no informed observer on these international instruments who does not envisage that the Bill opens the door for flagrant contravention and no Pepper v Hart assurances from the Front Bench can in any way undercut that.
My second and third submissions can be easily stated and they are independent of the first. The Minister, Mr Raynsford, adverted to the second when he said that the Bill gives the Secretary of State the power, if necessary, in the absence of an agreed settlement to the dispute, to impose a settlement. In the letter he wrote to your Lordships' Joint Committee on Human Rights, my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister wrote:
"As to the ILO Convention No 151, Article 8 says that settlement 'shall be sought through negotiation between the parties'. For over a year now, that is what has been sought but without resolution. I am seeking the powers in the Bill because settlement cannot be achieved through negotiation".
That is why it was widely and reasonably thought that if there was a settlement, the Government would not proceed with this Bill. That was the wide expectation of working people, employers and of a large number of other reasonably-minded people.
But the Government foresaw that—they are not lacking in foresight—and quietly invested in another argument that at the time went rather unnoticed. My right honourable friend Mr Raynsford, the Minister, put it in this way when he said that even if there was a settlement, the terms of the employers' offer means that there would still have to be detailed negotiations over the next few months and that it is important that we enact the powers of the Bill so that we are able to intervene if any such negotiations break down.
My noble friend Lord Rooker finally sent me a special letter on Monday to explain that point. He wrote:
"Under the terms of the deal agreed there remain a number of key issues to be resolved by further negotiations over the coming months".
He went on to say:
"If the negotiations were to falter, and the dispute flared up again as a result the Government would want to intervene decisively to resolve matters".
His argument tonight was along the same lines. What kind of argument is that? Any and every collective agreement ever made needs negotiation and agreement between the parties in its interpretation and application on the ground.
1032
The lines of negotiation for the application of the agreement are set out in the clauses of the 13th June agreement, including disputes procedures. It is a rather first-year element of industrial relations that you do have disputes procedures and negotiations for the interpretation and application of collective agreements.
What the Government are really saying is, "We wanted a negotiated settlement", and for all their mistakes I believe that they did, "but we want this Bill now with its powers to oppose our interpretation of any issues we choose on pay, on hours, and on organisation of the fire service in case the parties don't apply it how we say they should". That authoritarian proposition is quite unjustified and strikes further fear of what is to come into many employers and certainly into the trade union movement; a fear which the nation heard well expressed on Sunday on the BBC by the General Secretary of Unison when he said:
"We will not be treated as the fire-fighters have".
We now have a settlement for this extremely difficult dispute which the parties have not only made but are pledged through their own procedures to effectuate. It was not easily won. The firefighters supported it by a vote of three to one and commentators tell us that at least a third of union members, perhaps more, still feel angry and disappointed. For Heaven's sake give us a period of six months before unsettling the deal with provocations.
The final point that I make to the 15 or 16 noble Lords who have done the service the honour of attending this debate is that, in the spirit of common interest and in the light of what was said in another place, Conservative policy envisages new limits on the right to strike or even to be members of the union, a view which I manifestly do not share. The Conservatives also said that there should he some kind of arbitration. That general policy will certainly not he supported and furthered by rushing this Bill into law in the next two months.
The Liberal Democrat view—I say this with the greatest respect to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, who spoke from their Front Bench—is that the Bill is not the right way to resolve the dispute, that it sets a dangerous precedent for the future and that the Liberal Democrats favour independent arbitration. With the greatest respect, I say that that approach provides nothing in relation to the Bill being held up for a few months so that cool heads can look at it again. Frankly, if the matter goes to a Division, the question for them is whether they have the spine to line up with their colleagues in the Commons.
To my friends on the Labour Benches I say that in their hearts they know very well that they did not come to this House to support a Bill of this kind. They know that it will be seen as an affront to trade union rights and to collective bargaining. Today is the time to stop singing the sad anthem of the dispirited that has been so common among us in private, that great number of the 1960s, "It's my party and I'll cry if I want to". It is time to sing a different song and do something honourable for the party of which I have been a proud

1033
member for 56 years. Join in sending back this Bill whence it came. Give us a few months. Give the Government pause in their pell-mell rush over the edge of a terrible precipice.
7.37 p.m.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords for allowing me to speak in the gap. My reason for doing so arises from a number of noble Lords drawing attention to an unanswered question—the distinction between a Bill that somehow is not amendable and a Bill that is amendable. Different formulations were touched on by my noble friend Lord McCarthy, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. It is interesting to list, to identify and maybe to add to the different permutations on this matter. They centre on the proposition about arbitration: compulsory arbitration, arbitration at the request of one party, joint agreement on the selection of the arbitrator, whether ACAS or the Central Arbitration Committee, and so on.
Given the long history, to which reference has been made by my noble friend Lord McCarthy, and now that my mind has been jogged, I remember that the two famous orders, during the war and after the war—1305 and 1376—were different formulas on exactly this kind of matter. Of course, other discussions are taking place as we have this debate. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, raised the issue of whether it would be reasonable to do something aimed at the Fire Service asking where, after a strike has lasted so many weeks—the issue of strikes lasting more than eight weeks is being debated—arbitration fits in to all those matters. That would he a matter to be dealt with across the economy, not particularly affecting the public service.
Does my noble friend accept that these matters can be considered as amendments? Otherwise the case made by my noble friend Lord McCarthy is that the procedure he adopted this afternoon is necessary because the Bill is not amendable although that may overstate the point.
7.40 p.m.
Baroness Maddock: My Lords, we should thank the Minister for the time that he took to summarise the situation in which we find ourselves today as regards the Fire Service, which is a little different from when the Bill was introduced.
The Government both here and in another place have made it clear that they are introducing this Bill reluctantly, but, nevertheless, as has been observed during the debate, what they are introducing is an imposed settlement from the centre. Most people find it very hard to come to terms with that issue. People have a great deal of sympathy with the situation in which the Government find themselves. People wish to reach an agreement, but there is almost no support for the method that the Government are using to reach that settlement. Indeed, in this House no one has
1034
spoken in favour of what the Minister has said today. At Second Reading in another place only one Member of the Government supported the Minister.
My noble friend Lady Hamwee and I have spent quite a number of hours with the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, as regards various Bills. He has a habit of saying, "I'm not threatening", but his language and his body language are very threatening. Indeed, that was the case today concerning the position of the House of Lords.
When I agreed to come to the House in 1997, I expected to vote properly to reform it by 2003 and perhaps not have a job at all. But the House is still here. Whether the elected Chamber has passed the legislation, the system applied means that it goes through both Houses. Whether the Minister likes it or not, we have the right to express our views and do our very best by all methods to try to reach the settlement that we want.
We believe that the Government's strategy was right, but their tactics wrong. That is clearly true for many other people. My noble friend has already said that we have a great deal of sympathy with the Government's situation. We may be reaching a settlement without a Bill, which is a very desirable situation. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, said rather more on that issue.
The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, gave us a very good exposition of the history of the matter. I did not know of his role in these issues at an earlier date. It was a very interesting part of the debate. The main point of what the noble Lord said was that many of us believe that independent arbitration, not only in this country, is the correct way to try to settle disputes.
The Minister made much play of the "sunset" clause. It was not introduced by the Government; it was reluctantly accepted as an amendment from a Back-Bench Member of the Labour Party. We have heard from others who are much better versed in the law than I on the problems with that clause. The Minister made it sound as though everything was all right because of the sunset clause, but it is not quite as simple as that. My noble friend Lady Hamwee said so, as did the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway.
Given that we have a sunset clause, it would be very helpful if the Minister were to give us an indication of when we are to receive the White Paper. I believe that that was alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn of Charlton. In view of the proposals that the Government intend to introduce, and if there is to be a permanent settlement and a modernisation of the fire service, we need to know when that document will be available. I hope that one of the big issues that will be addressed in it will be pensions. I hope that the Minister can throw some light on the matter when he responds to the debate.
My noble friend Lady Hamwee asked the Government how the Bill interplays with the rights given to local government in the Local Government Bill, which is still passing through this House. I remind the Government of that question, as we are

1035
approaching the end of the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn of Charlton, made a very full speech about the problems of complying with international and European law. Again, my noble friend Lady Hamwee referred to that matter.
We have always held the view that a negotiated settlement would be easier without the Bill. Other noble Lords made that point also. We tried to amend the Bill in another place to include independent arbitration in the settlement. Perhaps we were wrong; it might not be possible to amend it. As my noble friend Lady Hamwee said, we tried to ensure that there was a secret postal ballot, as we believed that that would aid the process.
A subject that was not touched on in the debate is the very difficult time that many retained firefighters have experienced. Their financial settlements have been held up because of the long dispute. It has been a very difficult time for those in areas where fire services have already been modernised. South Shropshire, the area of my honourable friend in another place, is definitely ahead of the game. In Northumberland, where I live, the whole service is run by retained fire-fighters. If the Government are going to enact the Bill, we would like to know precisely how they will deal with that situation. What happens where some areas have modernised and others have not?
The whole sorry saga emphasises one of the Government's problems—their inability to put what they say into practice, particularly on decentralisation. The regions Bill would decentralise, but the Government are not giving away enough power. They say that in the Local Government Bill they are giving away powers. Indeed they are, but the powers are all hedged around bureaucracy, detail and a little bit of clawing back all the time.
The Bill involves a centralised settlement. Employers in local government managed to reach a settlement. However, they could not continue with it: when the Government decentralise and give away power, they are very reluctant ever to give away the financial power that goes with it. If the employers had been able to have the financial power, as they wished, we would not be in the current situation. That highlights the Government's problem.
We have said before, both in another place and in this House, that we think this is the right strategy but the wrong tactics. We certainly agree, as my noble friend said, that pay and modernisation must be linked. We agreed that we needed to set up a review, and we agree with the Bain review.
However, there are problems. When the various settlements have been discussed, obviously there has not been very good communication between the various people listening to what the settlement might be. Clarity of information for members making decisions about offers is very important.
If the Government were to implement the Bill, the practicalities would be quite difficult, particularly as some areas have modernised and others have not. But, above all, it would involve a centralisation of power. Local authorities have not been able to achieve the settlements that they wanted.
1036
We were challenged as to whether we had the spine to support the amendment. As my noble friend Lady Hamwee made very clear, much as that might be our desire it is not what is normally done in this place. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, agrees with us. Nobody, other than the Government, seems to support the Bill—that applies across all sides of both Houses of Parliament. The noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, said that the Government really should think again. This debate has shown them that that is the view across this House and another place.
7.50 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, in his introduction the Minister very nearly provoked me. I have always been a radical on the reform of your Lordships' House and it is very tempting to persuade him to get his colleagues in another place to do something drastic. However, I must not let my personal position intervene.
I am bound to say that I read this Bill with very mixed feelings—a combination of amazement, horror, despair and regret. In the late 1970s/early 1980s, I was chairman of the Association of County Councils' Fire and Civil Defence Committee. I was also a member of the National Joint Committee. The reason for my mixed emotions is the fact that in the fire service nothing has changed. The noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, made this point. The settlement in the 1970s which created a mathematical formula for the settlement of pay differences in the Fire Service killed the ability of the NJC to negotiate. As a result, the Fire Service has ossified and the same problems that were there in my time are still there today. The impossibility of changing things is a matter of serious regret.
There is another problem. There is a Jekyll and Hyde characteristic to members of the fire brigades service. When they are attending an emergency, we see their Jekyll characteristic at its best. Unfortunately, when they act collectively—this has been the fact over many years—we see the Mr Hyde characteristic. There has been a build-up which led to the crisis earlier this year. The union embarked on a series of brief national stoppages which eventually coincided with the build-up of the Iraq war. We then began to see pictures in newspapers of soldiers waiting for something to happen and dealing with it competently when it did. Those soldiers should have been somewhere else. Those images did great damage to the Fire Service. People began to question whether the high reputation that they had previously enjoyed was still so thoroughly deserved. I regret that.
There is a sense in which this Bill is equitable. It hits both the employers' and the employees' side on the National Joint Council. The employers are hit because the Bill gives the Minister power over the property which they presently control. It hits the employees because it gives the Minister power to fix and modify conditions of service. To the extent that the NJC must have a share in the responsibility for the present situation, that division is a fair one. But it takes two to reach an agreement.

1037
Even when there have been attempts to move the Fire Service out of its ossified mode, it has been difficult to do so. I would, and could easily, go into the problems that arise from conditions of service issues. The Fire Service agreements with employees are extraordinary. There are a number of what I would describe as "old Chinese practices" that have no place in this modern age. They must be dealt with.
Like everyone else in the debate, I find the presence of the Bill regrettable. The Government are embarking on a slippery slope. The Liberal Democrats have rightly made much of its being in complete conflict with the principle of devolution that the Government have preached since they came to power, particularly relating to local government.
Looking under the surface at the detail of any such legislation, one finds that devolution has written into it a much greater degree of central control. Here is a Bill that brings that central control slam bang to the Floor. There is nothing hidden or covert about this.
This Bill is here, and it must be dealt with. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway has rightly said that we do not oppose government Bills as a matter of practice on Second Reading in this House, and we will maintain that principle. However, that does not make the Bill right. We must ask the Government where they go from here.
Suppose some other aspect of the public service gets under the Government's skin in future negotiations. Suppose some sector of other public service employees decide that they do not like their settlement, which may well have gone through agreed procedures, and decide to take action against it. We have a deep and fundamental problem. The route that the Government have gone along cannot be sustained in a reasonable society.
It is true that matters in the Fire Service must change. I sometimes feel that I understand why the Government feel that they must have this bludgeon in their hands, but that is what it is. We must recognise it as such. If that is what we are coming to, the Government are heading into fields of unforeseeable difficulty, and they are beginning to sow the seeds of their own destruction.
7.58 p.m.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, we have had a wide-ranging debate. Perhaps my noble friend Lord Rooker and I feel lonely, but so be it. A number of important points have been raised. I shall try to answer most of them, but since we are at the early stages of this process some matters must he left for the Committee stage.
I must deal with the Government's reasons for proceeding with the Bill. First, let me reiterate the points made by my noble friend Lord Rooker. As he said, we welcome very much the FBU's acceptance last week of the employers' pay and modernisation proposals. Our preference has always been for the employers and the FBU to reach a negotiated settlement. We are greatly encouraged by the process
1038
so far and the progress that has been made since the introduction of the Bill. With the headline agreement now in place, we hope that the two sides can move forward in partnership with the Government to deliver a modern, more effective fire service.
As my noble friend Lord Rooker made clear, there is still much to negotiate. Many noble Lords argued that we have a settlement. We have a conditional settlement. In the agreement, the pay increases in stages 2 and 3 are subject to the completion of all the negotiations and consultations referred to in the agreement and, where appropriate, their ratification by the Fire Service national employers, the Fire Brigades Union and the Government. There must also be verification by the Audit Commission. We have made enormous progress, but we do not yet have a final settlement.
There is still much to do. We must negotiate a new pay structure, revised conditions of service, a new pay formula, and so on. We hope that those negotiations will proceed smoothly, but noble Lords will be aware—several have said so today—that the history of the dispute has been characterised by false dawns, with hopes raised only to be dashed at the last moment. We must be certain that history will not repeat itself a little further down the line.
It is therefore right that we should proceed with the Bill so that, if those detailed negotiations falter, we can take action to get things back on track. I am sure that noble Lords will not welcome having to revisit the issues if the detailed negotiations that will follow the main agreement fail to make progress and we find ourselves back at square one.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I am much obliged to my noble friend. Can he tell me of any major agreement—especially in the public sector—in the past 30 years in which the parties have not had to negotiate serious and central issues in the course of applying that agreement? What would be the difference between this agreement and those agreements, given the Government's case that they must have power to apply their own interpretation of the agreement in its application?
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I defer to the noble Lord's knowledge of trade union law. I am not in a position to give him an example. I can say that this is a vital public service. We have had an extraordinarily difficult year of negotiation. This is the Government's way of putting in place a framework that will mean that the public are protected if things get difficult again.
I return to the points I was making. The Bill is a stopgap; it is a long stop. We realise that it would be appalling to define the future of the Fire Service in the aftermath of the dispute with this Bill. As my noble friend Lord Rooker said, the Bill is a temporary measure, designed for a specific task. Our long-term strategy for the service will be set out in our forthcoming White Paper, to be published shortly—I

1039
can say no more than that—and we will seek legislation to implement the White Paper proposals at the earliest opportunity.
The powers in the Bill will, to all intents and purposes, lapse after two years, by which time we hope that the process of modernisation—with its expected benefits both in terms of public safety and in giving fire fighters even more rewarding careers than they have now—will be well under way.
I should like to—
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I have a point for clarification. Is the noble Lord saying that there will be a White Paper, after which there will be another Bill? Did I mishear him? We would be going slightly mad if every collective agreement had to be ratified by a form of legislation. I may have got it wrong.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I think that my noble friend Lord Rooker, in his opening remarks, said that the Bill will be about the new Fire Service, not about the dispute. I should like briefly to dwell on a few points made by noble Lords. My noble friend Lord McCarthy, in introducing his amendment, twice said that he did not want to traipse over the settlement. I hope that I have explained that this is not a settlement; it must be described as a conditional settlement. He also talked about it being imposed, but it was interesting—
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I do not want to tread over the ground raised by my noble friend Lord Wedderburn but I do not see that this agreement is any more conditional than thousands and thousands of agreements agreed every day. In a sense, the only simple unconditional settlement is one that just depends on giving the boys and girls the money—4 per cent. Once one gets to conditions, all agreements are the same.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, in the view of the Government the Bill is prudent. My noble friend Lord McCarthy and I will have to agree to disagree on this point. It was interesting that the FBU agreed to the conditional settlement knowing that the Bill was in the House of Commons. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, raised the point about the attitude of the FBU to the agreement. My noble friend Lord McCarthy also talked about arbitration, as did the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and my noble friend Lord Lea of Crondall. My noble friend Lord Lea also argued, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that the Bill was not amendable. We disagree. We think that the Bill is amendable. If amendments must be tabled for Committee, we shall look forward to debating them.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, no, this is quite serious. This is a specific one-object Bill which cannot be amended in the way that I wish to amend it.
1040
That is what I was saying. It can be amended within its object but not to meet the McCarthy point or my point or the Liberal point.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, this Bill is about one dispute. It is not about the whole public sector. We do not believe that the arbitration road is the one to take. It is right that the democratically elected Secretary of State with overall responsibility for the Fire Service is the appropriate person to settle disputes if the two parties cannot agree. The major causes of disagreement in the recent dispute have been issues which are not capable of being arbitrated—for example, how the service should move from nationally prescribed standards of fire cover to a locally determined risk-based approach to fire cover.
The Bill requires the Secretary of State to consult negotiating bodies on his proposals for fixing or modifying conditions of service. This means that he can take their views into account before making his final decision. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, asked some very interesting questions. She said that there were two matters on which she would like answers today—that is, the sunset clause and the Joint Committee on Human Rights. My noble friend Lord Rooker leapt to his feet and gave her an answer on the sunset clause—a matter also raised by other noble Lords—to which we shall have to return at a later date.
I can answer some of the questions that the noble Baroness asked. The Bill has no effect on the ability of fire brigade members to take strike action. In the view of the Government, employees' ability to take lawful strike action should be withdrawn only in exceptional circumstances. We have no plans to do so at present in relation to fire fighters.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, if the Bill, as I understood was the case, does not affect the right to strike, is it correct to present it in terms of its inevitably creating a settlement of the dispute? It is possible for the fire fighters to strike against the Secretary of State's attempts to impose conditions.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, the Bill does not in any way prevent strike action. That is an unambiguous and simple statement. The noble Baroness asked about its relationship to the Local Government Bill, and asked what would happen if that Bill were not passed. In fact, that would have no particular impact on the Fire Services Bill. She also asked about the note in paragraph 5 of the Explanatory Notes relating to Wales. That simply means that the Bill will apply to Wales as it applies to England—that is, it contains no specific provision for dealing with fire fighters or fire authorities in Wales.
The noble Baroness raised the matter of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. I can only repeat—although I shall not do so in full—the statement made at the beginning of the debate by my noble friend Lord Rooker. We do not believe that we are violating any convention, national or international. I am sure that we will return to these matters at a later stage.

1041
I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, for his adherence to convention. Many of his comments were supportive of the Government in that he said that one should never introduce a Bill like this in case of emergency. Exactly. Those are the only circumstances in which the Government would plan to introduce this Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, made a number of extremely interesting points, to which I am sure that we will return. We do not agree with him, but I am sure that we shall discuss the matter at a later time.
I have dealt with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lea, about amendments. Of course, amendments can be tabled.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend the Minister for giving way. He may be aware that some of us are considering exactly this question of tabling an amendment. Until we get to the debate about the amendment at Committee stage, about variations on arbitration, all I was saying was that the rationale behind the inability to vote down a Bill at this stage was to leave open the possibility of amending it. That was the only point I was making. Will the Minister indicate that he understands that that is our position?
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I fully understand, and I am most grateful to my noble friend Lord Lea for clarifying the matter.
The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, raised a number of interesting points. She mentioned the sunset clause. She also asked about the White Paper, which should be coming shortly. The whole question of firemen's pensions will be discussed in the White Paper.
The noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, hates the Bill but seems extraordinarily supportive of the need for change. He referred to Jekyll and Hyde and described the fire service as ossified.
In conclusion, we really do hope that we will not have to use the powers that the Bill will confer. Recent events are very encouraging, but while we hope that the circumstances in which the Government would have to use the powers will not arise, it is right that we take the powers so that we can intervene decisively if the implementation of the agreement between the FBU and the employers is blocked or unduly delayed.
I again stress that the Bill is intended for a specific short-term task—to allow us to deal with the dispute and its immediate aftermath. Our long-term vision for the Fire Service will be set out in our White Paper with legislation to implement its proposals being brought forward as soon as possible thereafter. That is why we have agreed that the Bill, if enacted, should have only a limited life. I commend it to the House.
8.15 p.m.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, like the noble Lord,
1042
Lord Wedderburn, I should like to thank all those who participated in the debate. It has been an excellent debate.
I should like to start by dealing with the arguments of those in favour of the Bill, which will not take me very long because that amounted to the Ministers. Their best argument was that the Commons had already decided the issue. That is a very strong argument and I am a great believer in the supremacy of the House of Commons. It was the best argument they had. But the trouble with it is that, as other speakers said, the Commons did not take very long to decide the matter. They could not find more than one Back-Bencher who had a good word to say for the Bill. The rest of them just stayed mum and voted. Although I am a great admirer of the House of Commons, we all know that that is one of the things you have to get used to in the Commons. That is the way they carry on. But they do not necessarily vote in a heartfelt way. Indeed, I do not think that the Ministers commended the Bill to the House in a heartfelt way.
I tried hard to find out precisely what the Secretary of State said about the Bill. That was difficult. I believe—I have marked this at col. 861 of Commons Hansard—that he hoped that the Bill would go away. That was before the settlement. He seemed to say that if only the Bill would go away there might be a settlement, and that if there was a settlement, the Bill could go away. I believe that most of us thought that it would go away. But all of a sudden it is here with us and the Government must explain why it is with us. The more they explain why it is with us, the worse it gets. They say that it is with us so that if anything goes wrong, we can thump the union with it, we can enforce the contract and we can go on doing it so long as we do not get rid of the orders. That does not help them get support, it just makes people feel that it is rather a shoddy affair.
That is why I have had—the Government ought to think about this—such widespread support this evening. I can say with confidence that I have won the argument because no one has defended the Bill, not even the Ministers other than to say that the matter was decided in the Commons. We were told by speakers on all sides of the House that the Bill will be resented by the fire-fighters. Of course it will. We were told that it could lead to precedents. Of course it could, because otherwise why are the Government enacting it now? They are thinking of the future, and not only the future as regards the Fire Service. The trouble with the 1947 Act was that it served as a precedent. But if this Bill is put on the statute book as it stands at present it will be a real precedent. It can serve as a precedent to be applied to doctors, nurses or others if the Government consider that they are being as awkward as the firemen. That was said not by me but by noble Lords on the other side of the House.
Most importantly, I believe that everyone who spoke, apart from the Ministers, told us that the great weakness of the Bill is that it does not allow the trade union side to have a fair hearing. It addresses only employers. It does not even provide for mediation or inquiry. It certainly does not provide for arbitration.

1043
All you get is the voice of the employers or the ghost in the bargaining table behind the employers, and there is no independence at all. I leave the Government with that thought.
It is not true that we cannot amend the Bill. I never said that we could not amend it. I will give your Lordships a tremendously important example of why that is so. We do not believe that it can be said that the Bill as it presently stands will not affect the right to strike. This is not the time to deal with the matter. This amendment is worth having. We could ask the Government to make it absolutely clear, in a modern version of the terms in the Trade Disputes Act 1906, that as a result of this Bill no court shall entertain an action that detracts from the present protection of industrial action. We could and will find an important amendment, and I hope that everyone who has expressed views about the strong weakness of the Bill will help us to pass it.
We could therefore find an amendment, but we cannot get to the heart of the Bill. We cannot provide the alternative. We do not have the cheek. The Prime Minister and the Cabinet must do it. The Government must decide that they do not want to continue marching down this defile in which more and more workers have no independent assessment of the justice of their cause. That is not possible. They must think of that. I am not going to suggest which particular variation of "independent is most appropriate. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, that it should be a general one, not a particular one. I believe that that is what is being said all round the House.
Let me add two final points. First, I was misrepresented. I never said that nothing had happened in the 25 years since the formula was provided for. The Bain report states that much happened and that many changes were made. The central problem—I say this because I was misrepresented—is that no one has dealt with the basic problem of the varying level of labour demand for the Fire Service. It is an organisation that deals with crises. In the bad old days before the war, the Fire Service was run with part-time workers, such as agricultural workers and dustmen, who attended every time the bell rang, just as they do today. But during the war we put them all on the payroll and gave them decent wages, and we have not since solved the problem.
The management has encouraged the firemen to get second, third and fourth jobs. It is not for this House to complain about second, third and fourth jobs. The present problem, which the Government do not appreciate, is that if we are to get rid of the culture of the firemen having two, three or four jobs, we shall need to provide them with much more to do, and they will have to be paid for it; and that would create a wonderful service throughout the country. Of course, we would not make any money from it. There is no such thing as a self-financed productivity deal in a fully-funded social service that does not charge for its product. The provision of better hospitals and police
1044
stations costs more money. It may be that better police stations help to catch more criminals, but it is not a self-financing productivity task.
In conclusion, I want to speak to my friends about two points. First, I have sat in this House since 1976 and, although I have abstained, I have voted against my party only once. Therefore, if I voted against my party on this occasion, I would not do so lightly. Secondly, I do not see voting against the period of a Bill, putting it on the top shelf, as the same as voting against the Bill. I see it as the only possible way of dealing with the problem. Therefore, with the degree of support that I have had in the House today, I am left with no alternative but to beg leave to press the amendment to a vote.
8.25 p.m.
On Question, Whether Lord McCarthy's amendment shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 4; Not-Contents, 61.

Division No. 4

CONTENTS

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Turner of Camden, B. [Teller]

McCarthy, L. [Teller]

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Alli, L.

Grenfell, L.

Amos, B.

Grocott, L, [Teller]

Andrews, B.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Harrison, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Haskel, L.

Bach, L.

Hayman, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Listowel, E.

Burlison, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Carter, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Chandos, V.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Crawley, B.

Mitchell, L.

Davies of Oldham, L, [Teller]

Morgan, L.

Desai, L.

Parekh, L.

Donoughue, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Rendell of Babergh,B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Rooker, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Filkin, L.

Simon, V.

Gale, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Thornton, B.

Golding, B.

Warner, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Whitaker, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Whitty, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Grand Committee.

Children
8.36 p.m.
Lord Carlile of Berriewrose to ask Her Majesty's Government what alternatives to custody they are considering for children who commit offences.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, when the Minister from the Home Office takes her place, I shall have some pleasure in welcoming her there in her new role. Perhaps I shall get on with some other points while we await her arrival. I am sure that she will be with us very shortly.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, perhaps I may suggest that the House adjourns during pleasure for five minutes.
Noble Lords: She is here!
Lord Carlile of Berriew: My Lords, in the presence of the Minister I should declare my interest as the outgoing chairman of NACRO's committee on children and crime, which has produced a number of reports on issues related to the Question that I raise tonight. I should like to repeat in her presence my welcome to her in her new role. As a key Minister, it is a most challenging role in the Home Office. I am sure that her somewhat late arrival for the debate was because she was poring over the many papers that she has already in her Red Boxes.
I would like to start with a question on a more or less mechanical issue, a question about procedure and the way in which youth justice will be dealt with in future. When the Minister responds to the debate, I should be grateful if she could say a little about the future of the Youth Justice Board. There has been speculation in the press that, for all I know, may be totally ill-informed. However, it would be useful to be told by the Government whether the Youth Justice Board will continue. If it does, will it do so subject to any major reforms? Its chair has taken a promotion in status although, we are told by the newspapers, a small cut in salary to become a Minister. Therefore, it would be interesting to know what steps the Government have taken to find very rapidly a new chair. I would certainly regard the Youth Justice Board as a key body.
I welcome the fact that the Minister in particular is answering the debate. In what I might call real life—the sort of life that she used to live before she became a Minister—she had valuable experience as a barrister dealing with cases involving troubled children. For example, her experience as counsel included part of the North Wales child abuse inquiry—the Waterhouse inquiry. A number of us in the House tonight have experience of dealing with very serious cases involving troubled children who have been victims of child abuse. We know that the witnesses who give evidence as adults to criminal courts, or to inquiries such as Waterhouse, have had troubled, abused and criminal childhoods, often involving long periods in custody. Their history as children is in part what has made them into adult criminals. That troubles me as an individual
1046
and moves me to ask this Question. The evidence available to researchers—it has emerged in the work of NACRO—attests that children in serious trouble show, albeit sometimes in an antisocial and florid way, exactly the same characteristics as do children in need who do not commit serious offences. The problem therefore is plainly the same; the answer we give is often quite different. I would ask whether we are justified in being quite as brutal as we are as a society with some children by incarcerating them for long periods when in reality we are dealing with children who have been socially exclused.
I should like to look at the typical characteristics of these children. Whether they commit serious crime, or are simply socially excluded, these children have typically lived in poverty and been deprived of comfort. Visiting young offender institutions, I have noticed that they perpetuate the complete lack of comfort in children's lives, brutalising them. Although I welcome internal sanitation in prisons, in some young offender institutions, young people are locked in cells for a very long time every day, and it can be justified because they do not even have to slop out any more. They can live their whole lives in the cage, their cell.
Many have been deprived of conversation. No one bothers to talk to them, and their parents have never had the art of conversation. At best, they listen to conversation on the television. Most have had a depressingly poor education—the numeracy and literacy rates of many young offenders are appalling before they come before the courts. They have often had bad housing; family tension has been almost inevitable; often, one—or both—of their parents has committed crimes; and there has been substance misuse in the family. I refer not only to drugs misuse but to serious alcohol misuse in many of their homes. A higher than average incidence of mental ill health arises from these factors.
That is the profile of the people we are incarcerating—in great number—while they are still children. We and the Government must ask ourselves whether we cannot do better. In our sophisticated society, committed to giving resources to these issues—the Government will pay for prisons—one is entitled to expect not only convenient practice, but empirical best practice.
Therefore, it is disappointing and sad to find that on the two occasions it has reported since the United Kingdom ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child 12 years ago, the relevant UN committee has been critical of us. Most recently, in 2002, the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child was especially critical of the youth justice system in England and Wales.
The starting point of much of the criticism is the age of criminal responsibility. Once a child can be convicted of a crime—and there is no real difference between the phrases "a finding of guilt" applied to youngsters and "conviction" applied to adults—they have reached the age of stigma: age 10 in this country. It is the lowest in Europe. I have tried very hard to find

1047
a reason why Britain should have the lowest age of criminal responsibility in Europe. It is even lower than in Turkey, which has a poor record in criminal justice issues on any objective investigation. In the Netherlands the age of criminal responsibility is 12; in France it is 13; Germany, 14; Denmark, 15; and in Belgium it is 16. Those are just examples.
I visited all of those countries, some on several occasions, and I have not observed wild criminal children marauding the streets to any greater extent than one finds in Wickham, Welshpool or any other average town or city of this country. Those countries manage the issue without including children in the often bemusing and sometimes plainly inappropriate court structure. All those countries avoid convicting children under the age of criminal responsibility. It is not that they do not do anything; of course they do something. They have to deal with the social exclusion problems that those children present, but they do it without involving the court structure. It seems to me that it is self-evident that if in other civilised countries a higher age of criminal responsibility works and produces a lower rate of adult conviction as it appears to, it should be able to work here and I would ask the Government to consider that.
Nor do we shrink from locking up large numbers of children. The United Nations committee suggested in 2002 that the United Kingdom may be in breach of its international treaty obligation, which is to use custody for children as a last resort and for the shortest possible time. Proportionally—I am afraid I find these statistics breathtaking—we send four times as many under-18s to custody as France; 10 times as many as Spain and 100 times as many as Finland. Finland may be a particularly peaceful country, so let us take Spain as our parameter.
Custodial sentences for children under 15 have increased by 800 per cent in 10 years, with black children five times more likely than white children to be locked up. That tells us that there is a malaise in the way in which we deal with children who commit crime because there is certainly no evidence that it works.
The evidence is clear. We are not using custody as a last resort and the category of grave crimes leading to longer sentences is far too wide. I would hope that a Government who have the courage to abolish the ministerial role of the Lord Chancellor after 1,000 or 1,300 years, however many it is, should have the courage to be radical on an issue which affects the future of real children in our society.
What is more, I say to the noble Baroness that that would work on value-for-money grounds. Six months of an intensive supervision and surveillance programme out of gaol costs £6,000. That sounds like a lot of money, but keeping the same child in custody for six months costs £21,000. That is the price of a place at Eton for half a year in a young offender institution. That sounds like pretty rotten value to me. Indeed, we would probably do better with them if we sent them to Eton than to young offender institutions. What a ridiculous situation that is.
1048
Furthermore, the recidivism rate is frighteningly high after incarceration. There is a reconviction rate of 80 per cent within 20 years for 14 to 17 year-olds. The detention and training order has been introduced into custodial institutions but there is absolutely no sign of that having a lower recidivism rate so far. The Youth Justice Board gave an undertaking fairly recently that it would remove girls from custody and put them into local authority care but it has not. So, plainly, the figures went down and then went up again. Unless the Minister can produce some new and more recent figures, that is a failure of the system too.
There is much evidence that leads one to the conclusion that taking children out of custody, save in those rare cases where society really has to be protected, is a much better option. Education is better outside the detention estate; medical provision is better outside the detention estate; and they learn to live real life with real people, particularly if they have the support of the Probation Service, for which I have the highest praise for what it does with young people.
I invite the Government to consider that it is time to shift from a punitive agenda to restorative justice for children who commit serious crime, to look at the proposals that come from organisations like NACRO and to seek to give the country value for money in terms of youth justice outcomes.
8.50 p.m.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, for the opportunity to debate this important issue. I apologise for not being in my place for the first three minutes of his speech. I shall study carefully what he said tomorrow.
I seek assurance from the noble Baroness that Her Majesty's Government recognise the chronic emotional needs of many of the children we are discussing and that responses to their offending behaviour should include consideration of those emotional needs. As the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, said, many such children fit into the welfare provision rather than the penal provision.
A large number of the children are either in care or care leavers and they are in that position as a consequence of family dysfunction. Often their parents—those who should have cared for them most—have been either neglectful or deliberately destructive towards them. Often the parents have been emotionally maimed by experience of their own parents.
Such children are often unable to blame their own parents. For a child to admit that his parents have not valued him is normally difficult. It would be akin perhaps to the shock of a devout Christian finding that God thought that man had no importance. All the young person's rage at his rejection is either directed at himself or at other adults in the wider society.
Yesterday I attended a meeting of the All Party Parliamentary Group for Children and Young People in Care and care leavers. A young man told us that he had experienced 15 placements, 15 different homes, while he had been in care. There was a sense of outrage

1049
in the room because Her Majesty's Government had decided that they would no longer fund the programme supporting advocacy for care leavers by care leavers. What truly enraged the young people was that there was to be a succeeding meeting to which only adults were invited and no care leavers had been invited.
There was such distrust among those young people of the adult world. Yes, that was in part because they had experienced a care system in which we have chosen not to invest over many years. I add in parenthesis that I very much welcome Her Majesty's Government's recent attempts to rectify the situation. They also manifested the distrust and animosity towards adults natural to those who had been let down by their parents.
Were custody arranged on humane lines, were it to address the emotional and other needs of these children, there might be a place for it within the range of appropriate responses. However, we have generally failed to invest in high quality secure accommodation. Children, who are the most difficult inmates to manage, have not been cared for by appropriately trained, supported and supervised staff. The custodial environment has not evolved to meet their needs. Nor have there been the essential arrangements to ensure a smooth transition from community to custody and from custody to community.
The noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, described some hopeful alternatives to custody. I observe that those providing supervision and surveillance of children need to be well trained and well supported in what they do. Often the children they manage will be thoroughly provocative for the reasons I have described. They may attack their supervisor in different ways as a representative of the adult world. It will be necessary for the supervisor to respond with firmness but to avoid being pushed into the overly punitive or neglectful behaviour of the child's parents. He may need the self-possession of a saint. He will require enough of an understanding of child development to see where the child is coming from and not to take the child's aggressive behaviour personally. He may need to see colleagues and to experience supervision regularly to enable him to cope. If he can avoid being "destroyed", as it were, by the child, or being provoked into an over-harsh response, if he can maintain a consistent, caring, firm response, it may be that child's first experience of a decent adult carer. That could be of incomparable value in moving the child into a better relationship with adults and the adult world, and consequently away from offending.
At the same time we have to respect the depth of damage that has been done to many young people. Those who provide supervision, surveillance, mentoring or intensive fostering need to know how to refer a child to child and adolescent mental health services. Mental health professionals have to be available to meet that need. It is often important to separate the role of an adult who takes a continuing, caring interest in a child from the adult who helps the child to come to terms with the demons raging within.
1050
An illustration comes to my mind of a child who so provoked his school mates that he was shunned by all of them. The boy was only three years-old. Many of the children of whom we speak have much of a three year-old still in them. The boy's mother ran a small business and had to leave her infant on his own for much of the day. He had nothing to do, no adult available to him, and only saw his mother when she came to tell him off for crying or for being a nuisance.
He began to receive help from a child psychotherapist. At the same time the head of the small school which he attended was consistently firm with him, not overly punitive as his mother had been, but she would prevent him from harming other children or disrupting their activities.
After two years he was still testing boundaries. In the school group the head needed to hold his hand if he were to concentrate on an activity. But he had made such progress that he had become the most popular child among his nursery mates. One parent wrote to the head saying how her daughter had most particularly wanted the boy to come to her birthday party.
I conclude that many of these children will provoke their immediate carers. They will provoke us, the adult world. If they succeed in provoking in us an overly punitive and harsh response, we will confirm to them what they already know—that the adult world is uncaring and that they are worthless. Their consequent rage will either be spent on ourselves or on themselves. If we can provide them with a firm, but fair response, we may begin to assist them in making peace with the adult world.
I join with the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, in calling for more government investment in alternatives to custody. Can the Minister say when intensive surveillance and supervision provision will be available nationally?
8.59 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, in a debate held not very long ago, I said that in my view the only real achievement of the Government in the criminal justice field was the Youth Justice Board. I am distraught to hear that it is under question at present. I was very much impressed by the leadership that the noble Lord, Lord Warner. had given to that board.
I quote from Sir David Ramsbotham's report of 1997 in which he said,
"The vast majority of young people in custody need individual attention given to the problems which produce their criminal behaviour. If all they get is akin to being stored in a warehouse, then the chances of their re-offending, creating yet more victims, are very great indeed."
Since that time, the Youth Justice Board has introduced some positive initiatives. That gave us hope that things would be done, but, as the noble Lord said, not much has happened.

1051
I shall explain the importance of the issue. My noble friend Lord Carlile and I are very familiar with the histories and psychiatric reports that we read—no doubt the Minister is, too. I know of a case involving a man in his 60s who is said to have grown up in a home atmosphere that was mixed up as a result of his father's violent streak. He ran away at the age of 12 after being physically abused by his father. That is typical causation of criminal conduct—the man's offending began at age 12 and he is now in his 60s. So much starts at that age. My noble friend Lord Carlile referred to several matters, to which we could add sexual abuse in the home, drug abuse and personality disorders, which have been identified as causing offending behaviour.
In a report published in 2002 by the Children's Society, Vulnerable Inside: children in secure and penal settings by Barry Goldson, a survey showed that 48 per cent of 15 and 16 year-old boys on remand in Prison Service custody had been living apart from any member of their family immediately prior to remand and 12 per cent were living rough. While most said that they wanted to talk to somebody, only 68 per cent considered that, throughout their period of' growing up, there was nobody to whom they could turn. Forty-eight per cent had been permanently excluded from school and a further 36 per cent reported that they simply did not go to school at all. Twenty-eight per cent were suffering physical ill health and 28 per cent reported a history of mental ill health.
That is an unacceptable way of dealing with children. On previous occasions, I have urged this Government to take account of the children's panel system in Scotland. Under that system, the reporter receives referrals—mainly from the police but sometimes from other agencies—and can refer a child suffering from difficulties for a hearing. Those children's hearings are founded on several fundamental principles. The key principle is that it is to promote the welfare and best interests of the children. The second is that the cases should be heard by lay tribunals comprising representatives of local communities in a non-adversarial and relatively informal setting. A further key principle, which we have heard about from our Scottish friends, is that there should be an opportunity for children and their parents to participate in discussion on the nature of the difficulties they faced and framing proposed solutions. A fourth principle is that there should be a separation of responsibility for deciding on disposals from the determination of the facts, including guilt or innocence. If it is suggested that a crime has been committed, the sheriff may deal with the criminal aspect but disposal is referred to the children's panel so those procedures can be effective. The procedures are far better than the offence-based approach in England and Wales.
The basic problem of dealing with children in England and Wales is that, from age 10 onwards, they are faced with crimes that they are supposed to have committed, and the whole system is geared to a hearing. That is an unsatisfactory way of proceeding. I hope that noble Lords will forgive me for running slightly over the allotted time. My noble friend Lady
1052
Walmsley is absent after her exhaustive efforts with the Sexual Offences Bill. It is very important that the Government should take account of practice in Scotland and on the continent and put the interests of children first.
9.05 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, last time I spoke in a debate with the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, she commented that I was being succinct. My noble friend on the Front Bench whispered to me sotto voce the word "creep". Be that as it may, among all the other problems currently facing the Government today, thanks to the eloquently introduced debate by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, we are to consider the plight of offending children.
New mechanisms were introduced on the back of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, including final warning schemes, reparation orders, action plan orders, child safety orders and parenting orders. In these subsequent intensive supervision and surveillance programmes, too many children continue to be held in prison on remand or under sentence. They are held either on a detention and training order for the 12 to 17 year olds or under Sections 90 and 91 of the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000. This covers children aged 10 to 17 convicted of a grave offence.
It is a worrying fact that the latest statistics that I managed to find show that in 2001 receptions of 15 to 20 year olds were 19,699 males and 1,270 females. The figures in 1997 were 19,890 and 853 respectively. That is an overall increase of 5 per cent, but a much more worrying increase among young girls. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile is absolutely right to be concerned. I recently read a report on a visit to Holloway conducted between 8th and 12th July last year by the Chief Inspector of Prisons. The report was published on 18th February this year. I was shocked to read that in that time 13 girls under 18 were held in Holloway and that three were pregnant. I was even more shocked to discover that they only managed to achieve two total bodily washings a week. They are not supposed to be there at all. The chief inspector described this ongoing situation as both inexcusable and depressing and appealed to the Home Office to do something about it fast.
I was then somewhat surprised when the Director-General of the Prison Service responded by blaming the Youth Justice Board. This may have something do with the comments referred to on the Liberal Benches about possible changes to that board. The accusation was that they were not providing places elsewhere. Why? Do they not have the money? Do they not have the function? Do they not have the policy? We all agree that prison is the wrong place for these children.
I pay tribute to her and the work that she is doing, and also to her predecessor, with whom I played bridge only this week. I also pay tribute to the Howard League for Penal Reform, for bringing a case to judicial review in November 2002. This resulted in a High Court judgement that safeguarding the welfare

1053
of children in custody was the responsibility of the local authority. Commenting on the case, Mr Justice Munby said:
"There are things being done to children by the state—by all of us—in circumstances where the state appears to be failing and in some cases failing very badly, in its duties to vulnerable and damaged children."
I do not like youth custody. But, alas, it will always be necessary in very rare cases.
I therefore believe that custody for young people should be a last resort, once other options have failed. However, there should also be a provision to impose custody earlier if it is clear that the young person is out of control and is a danger not only to himself, but also to the community.
It can be universally agreed that custody, used appropriately, can have a highly constructive role to play in reducing offending and promoting rehabilitation. It is difficult to turn around the behaviour of young people who have reached the point of being sentenced to detention in young offenders' institutions. Many have been convicted on dozens of occasions; are dependent on drugs; suffer from mental illness and have poor levels of achievement, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said, in reading and numeracy. This is a difficult group to rehabilitate. At present, more than 80 per cent of 14 to 17 year-olds are reconvicted within two years of release from custody. But there are custodial approaches that appear to be working better than that.
I come from the West Country, and I was pleased to note that the Centre for Adolescent Rehabilitation in Devon is a charity that offers a one-stop shop for resettling and rehabilitating 18 to 24 year-old persistent offenders, following their release from prison. This starts with an 11 week-long intensive residential programme in open custody, focusing on personal development and basic skills for 14 hours a day, seven days a week. This period of open custody is followed by nine months of intensive mentoring and support while finding the young men housing and employment. Not all the young men complete what is a tough and demanding programme on their first occasion—but many go on to succeed after two or three welcomes back to the programme. Many participants have Home Office predicted reconviction rates of 90 per cent and more. Yet this charity's participants achieve reconviction rates significantly lower than the norm.
The level of structured support and discipline that the programme gives, particularly in the transition period following release from custody, is a crucial factor in the success of the scheme. It is important, when discussing the use of custody for young people, to recognise the importance of structuring both the period of custody and the period of release from custody, if it is to be constructive and rehabilitative.
I am sure that the Government would agree that the best alternatives to youth custody are those that get young people off the conveyor belt to crime much earlier in their lives. This means tackling the problem
1054
of children progressing from disruptive homes to problems in school and petty crime, through to serious crime and repeat convictions.
My right honourable friend the shadow Home Secretary has talked about his desire to extend the availability of programmes through voluntary organisations that can help parents and address early troubled behaviour. He has also proposed that we should actively identify young people who are on heroin and cocaine—to say nothing of glue sniffing and general solvent abuse—to present them with a choice: treatment or the criminal justice system. Measures such as these can tackle offending behaviour effectively and early, offering a way to reduce the need for custody later down the track.
Au fond, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, that this is a social and not a criminal problem. I believe that the way to tackle it is from the beginning. Children are not born bad; they become bad because of poverty. I pay tribute to the Government for their more generous financial support to families with children than that which we were able to provide.
These children also become bad because of poor housing, poor health, bad teaching and, perhaps worst of all, bad parenting skills. I am delighted to see that lessons in parenting skills are beginning to be introduced in schools. Perhaps I may give noble Lords an example. I saw a young girl this morning who was a model student at school, but a totally disruptive force at home. My desire will obviously take some time to work through, changing human behaviour being as difficult as it is. However, that is no excuse for the Government, and, indeed, all of us, not to try.
9.15 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken and I thank particularly the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, for calling for the debate. Although we are few in number, it is an important debate, and I express my pleasure at being able to respond to it. I also thank the noble Lord for his kind compliments. I take the opportunity to acknowledge the valuable contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, to the work of NACRO in looking at ways to reduce child imprisonment. The issue demands our attention and our time.
As each noble Lord said, we know that young people under the age of 18 are responsible for a disproportionate amount of difficulty and crime. We know that the reasons why they commit those crimes are disparate. The noble Lords, Lord Carlile of Berriew and Lord Thomas of Gresford, alighted on some of them, as did the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. It is right to say that we must address those issues with vigour.
In London, for example, something like a quarter of burglaries are committed by 10 to 16 year-olds, as are a third of car thefts. The priority must be to prevent offending in the first place. If a child or young person commits an offence, the priority must be to deal with

1055
them as constructively as possible in the community. The Government believe that custodial sentences should be the last resort for juvenile offenders. It is for that reason that there is now a wide range of community-based penalties and interventions within them that are targeted at young people who would otherwise face custody.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, will ask, "Can't we do better?". In the past five or six years, we have done better, and we are trying to do better still. I hope that I can reassure noble Lords that the future of the Youth Justice Board is secure. The Government have no plans to disband it. We shall, of course, have to consider carefully a suitable replacement for the outgoing chairman of the board, the noble Lord, Lord Warner, because of his new position, and we shall put in place arrangements to seek suitable candidates. I do not hesitate to tell your Lordships that we feel that the noble Lord, Lord Warner, will be a hard act to follow, but there are skilled and dedicated people available in the country. We hope that we will find a candidate of sufficient weight and expertise to do justice to the job started so powerfully by the noble Lord.
I can also reassure the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, that the figures are falling. The figures that he quoted from the report are now out of date. I turn to the issue of girls in custody. On 18th February, the board announced its intention to remove all under-17 year-old girls from Prison Service accommodation during 2003 and place them instead in secure training centres and local authority secure children's homes. As of 12th May, there were no 15 year-old girls in Prison Service accommodation, and the number of 16 year-olds was 16. That is in line with the commitment given by my right honourable friend Jack Straw in March 1999, when he said that he intended to use the greater flexibility provided by detention and training orders to place sentenced 15 and 16 year-old girls in available non-Prison Service accommodation.
I shall take the opportunity to apologise for being a minute or two late at the start; I hope that noble Lords will think that I was well employed. I was discussing the issue with the noble Lord, Lord Warner. He was able to assure me that the reason why girls were kept in Holloway—the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, referred to the report—was that, at one stage, the only mother-and-baby unit available for under-18 year-olds was in Holloway. It has the best drug detox service for young women where some remanded young women were able to go with their children. It was better to keep them near their homes than to move them a long way away. So they were kept there on recommendation for a short time.
The noble Lord also made the point that 17 year-olds can be a very difficult age group with which to deal because they do not like to be housed with the 12 and 14 year-olds and very much resent that. They present us with some more complex difficulties, but I assure noble Lords that we are of the same mind as to the best place to house these very difficult young people.
1056
The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, stressed the importance of early intervention. I agree with him. We believe that the earlier we can intervene to interfere with the aberrant behaviour demonstrated by some of the dysfunctional children, the better, because the more successful that intervention may be. We are keen to ensure that children of a young age are not prosecuted whenever an alternative can be found. We are also looking at other alternatives. The Youth Justice Board is piloting youth inclusion and support panels which are targeting eight to 13 year-olds.
Any agency working with children in that age group which sees them displaying severely disruptive behaviour will be able to refer them to the panel on a voluntary basis. It provides an opportunity to address the anti-social behaviour by referring them to the voluntary panel which will bring together all the key agencies in a position to help. They can be referred on to the mainstream services which can steer them away from future problems, including crime and anti-social behaviour.
I am sure that the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, is similar to mine. In dealing with these very difficult cases, a holistic approach is needed with all agencies targeting the needs of these children so that they have a realistic prospect of rehabilitation—often before they commit any serious offence. The noble Lord talked about being radical. The Government are quite prepared to be radical and intend so to do.
We are soon to publish the Green Paper on children at risk which will also look at the long-term development of initiatives for children at risk of offending. The paper will identify radical options to improve services for children. It will focus on the identification and tracking of children at risk, including the provision of mainstream and specialist services to them. It will cover all services working with children and young people, including social services and youth justice, as well as the role of schools, families and communities. Of course, I would not say that anything the Scots can do we can do better—particularly not when one has a name such as my own. We certainly intend to be very productive in the work that we are undertaking.
The Government's youth justice policy emphasises, in particular, stopping early offending behaviour patterns and reinforcing young offenders' own sense of personal responsibility for what they have done. We need to understand reasons for crime and do something about them. But not to excuse them. Previously, the prosecution had to prove not only whether a 10 to 13 year-old committed the act, but also that he or she knew that it was not just naughty but seriously wrong to do it. That delayed and interrupted the approaches for justice, including the interventions to tackle offending behaviour.
We made the judgment that children of 10 and above normally know what is wrong—certainly in the area of crime—and that it is in everyone's interest, including that of the young person, to reach a finding and a sentence as soon as possible so that steps can be taken to stop further offending. But it is important for

1057
us to look at the panoply of orders that are now available and the types of interventions that can be used before a child comes to court. We now have an opportunity for those who prosecute, having been able to speak to the child and the family, to issue a reprimand.
There is provision, too, for a final warning with an intervention or without an intervention—although 90 per cent are with an intervention—about a voluntary programme. The programme involves identifying the child's needs and the source of the difficulty and putting in place a programme that will address them. If there are court proceedings, a far wider range or orders is now available.
There can be a referral order, which is an ability to design an intervention programme and draw up a contract for the young offender. That could include reparation, whether to the victim or the community. It could include an agreement to attend school properly, family group therapy and other issues. If the child does not plead guilty but is found guilty by the court, a reparation order can be made in relation to the offending.
There is the action plan order, the fostering requirement, the supervision order, the curfew order and the ISSP, to which three noble Lords referred. The parenting orders are proving very creative and successful. Even some of those who resist a parenting order initially find it beneficial. I understand that some even invite their friends who are having difficulties to do it on a voluntary basis before an intervention. Those are very good things. At the end of the menu come the detention and training orders, when all else has failed. As noble Lords know, they are part custody and part community orders, for up to two years, so that a year could be spent in custody if necessary and a year could be spent in the community, or any period in between. Those are very creative improvements.
The noble Lords, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and Lord Carlile, will remember the days when such an array of opportunity was not available to the courts. We had very blunt instruments: conditional discharges, absolute discharges, supervision orders, care orders or detention in prison. That was it. We could not target the difficulties that those children had in an effective and productive way that brought about change. We have thankfully been able to make enormous improvements.
I was asked about the intensive treatment provided by the intensive supervision and surveillance programme. That started in July 2001. I agree with noble Lords who say that it has been very successful. Each year it targets 3 per cent of the most serious and persistent young offenders, estimated to be responsible for 25 per cent of these crimes. It is the most rigorous non-custodial intervention available for young offenders, providing the courts with a credible alternative to custody. It combines unprecedented levels of supervision, including electronic monitoring, with programmes designed to tackle the underlying causes of the offending behaviour. Local youth offending teams identify the young people to be
1058
included and provide an intensive and highly structured programme, which will run up to 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
At present, 70 per cent of the country is covered. We will bring on stream further funding in January 2004 so that we can take the programme nationwide. We have managed to secure £26.5 million per annum for the programme from 2004 onwards. Noble Lords will know that we have already spent £36.5 million setting it up; this year we have spent £24 million on the programme. The programme will be evaluated by Oxford University. That evaluation is due to be completed in 2004. We are going forward, and it gives me great pleasure to be able to reassure noble Lords that we are very much aware of the benefit of taking advantage of this opportunity so as to avoid unnecessary numbers of young people going into custody.
We also accept, as the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, said, that for some children, particularly those who have gone through the whole menu, there is no other choice than to consider custody. In those circumstances we want to make sure that the best interventions are made during the period when the children are in the custody of the authorities. Why is that? It is because often, particularly when there have been difficulties at school and other difficulties, that may be the first opportunity the children have to address their learning difficulties and their offending. That is of extreme importance and we are determined to address that need.
Much has been done but I do not hesitate to tell your Lordships that we believe that there is still much to do. What is heartening, however, is that we genuinely feel that we are on the road to recovery as regards many of these children. That progress has occurred as a result of the efforts made by many agencies coming together to try to tackle the matter. The Government regard tackling children's and young people's offending behaviour as one of their top priorities. As one of our first tasks we overhauled the youth justice system and put in place the reforms that were first set out in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, for his compliments in relation to what the Government have sought to do in this area. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, for his warm words.
The overarching goal of the youth justice system was clearly set out in legislation for the first time in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998; that is, to prevent offending by children and young persons. In doing so the Government have signalled their clear determination to tackle the problem constructively and proactively. It is a big challenge and, as I say, there is still much to do, but we have made a start. The ultimate goal for society must be to guide children and young people towards law-abiding behaviour, to keep them out of custodial establishments and to help them to become valuable members of their communities.
House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes before ten o'clock.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the

  Extradition Bill
  (Fourth Day)
  Thursday, 19th June 2003.
  The Committee met at a quarter before four of the clock.
  [The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale) in the Chair.]
  Clause 5 [Provisional arrest]:
  [Amendment No. 45 not moved.]
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs (Lord Filkin)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs (Lord Filkin) moved Amendment No. 46:
  Page 4, line 6, after "authority" insert "is a judicial authority of the category 1 territory and"
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 47 not moved.]
  Clause 5, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 6 [Person arrested under section 5]:
  [Amendments Nos. 48 and 49 not moved.]
  Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Amendment No. 50:
  Page 4. line 34, leave out "taken to be"
  The noble Lord said: I can be very brief. Clause 6(5) of the Bill states:
  "If subsection (2) is not complied with the person must be taken to be discharged".
  There is a parallel provision in Clause 4 which raises wider issues and to which different arguments apply. However, the semantics points raised by the amendment may also be considered in relation to Clause 4. and
  I do not in any way criticise the draftsman, but I do not understand the drafting of Clause 6(5). I thought what we meant was that if subsection (2) was not complied with—for example, if the person was not brought before the appropriate judge—he should be discharged and, as indicated in previous debates, discharged immediately. I do not understand why the clause does not state that.
  It may be that I am ignorant of some special meaning of "taken to be discharged", but I would prefer to see a clear statement of what we mean. I do not understand what is meant by "taken to be discharged" if the person is not actually discharged. I
  GC 354
  believe we mean that he should be discharged immediately. If so, why do we not say so? That is what the amendment seeks to do. I beg to move.
  Baroness Turner of Camden: I have put my name to the amendment, which is grouped with Amendment No. 51. The amendment will lead to greater clarity. If "taken to be discharged." means anything it means that if the proper procedures have not been followed the individual concerned has a right to be discharged—and, quite clearly, has a right to be discharged immediately. I support the amendment.
  Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: We believe that the first of the two amendments has value in the sense that. unless there is some special legal phraseology attached to "taken to be", clarity should be sought. We therefore support that amendment.
  Unless there is a special reason for not doing so, the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, may also wish to bring forward an amendment to remove the words "taken to be" from subsection (6) in order to ensure that the two subsections run together.
  We had slightly more difficulty with Amendment No. 51. The use of the word "immediately" must he squared with the 48 hours available to the police under Clause 6(3). We debated at some length the 48-hour issue during the last meeting of the Committee. Clearly there are rights and wrongs in connection with provisional arrest which we do not need to go over again. However, it is not clear how the word "immediately" inserted at the end of line 36 could be squared with 48 hours. The two could lead to discontinuity and difficulties for the police, the prosecution and the defendant.
  Lord Filkin: I shall speak succinctly because my noble friend Lord Wedderburn is right in what he infers we should impute by these words—that 'must be discharged" means discharged forthwith—when the relevant test has been triggered by other clauses in the Bill. However, we are worried that that phraseology would imply that there must he a formal discharging process. That is why the Bill is so worded rather than in the way proposed in the amendment. If it is intended that the person should be released immediately, taking him before a judge to bring about that discharging process would slightly negate that intent.
  What we wish to do, therefore, is to take the spirit of what has been said by my noble friend, reflect on whether there is any better way of expressing this to make it absolutely clear that it is our intention that when the tests have been applied—for example, when the 48 hours have expired—the person should be released immediately without the need for a court hearing to do so. We shall reflect on whether it is possible to improve the drafting in that respect. I hope that my noble friend will regard that as helpful.
  Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Naturally I am pleased with that response. As I said, I do have a reason for not applying this to Clause 4, where various other points arise. However, I have to admit that I was

  GC 355
  grossly negligent in not having looked at subsection (6) and, in regard to Amendment No. 51, I do see the slight problem that could arise with the use of the word "immediately" and the terms of Clause 5. I am glad that the Minister will look at this issue again. No doubt he will solve all the problems with the ingenuity that only his advisers can command.
  Obviously I shall withdraw the amendment but, while I am on my feet, I seek the leave of the Committee to refer— either now or immediately after the amendment is withdrawn—to a problem which has arisen in regard to our procedure. Perhaps noble Lords think that I should speak to it now? Several Members of the Committee are nodding—I do not see many dark looks—so I shall do so.
  I should like the Government Whips, or whoever is the authority in this matter, to make a Statement shortly, at a time convenient to the Grand Committee—the word "shortly" is one that we are used to in this Committee—on whether the Government will consider afresh a request that I have already made to the Chief Whip. He felt that he could not concede to my request earlier today, but would the Whips consider arranging, in some ingenious way consistent with the interests of all noble Lords taking part in the Committee proceedings, to adjourn the Grand Committee on the Extradition Bill when our proceedings coincide, or are obviously about to coincide, with the proceedings in the Chamber on the Fire Services Bill?
  In view of what has been said about this request, I wish to emphasise that I do not seek this simply for my own convenience but for the convenience of other noble Lords. It is true that my noble friends and myself who are concerned with both this Bill and the Fire Services Bill have a special interest, but I apprehend that we are not the only Members of the Grand Committee who have an interest in both matters.
  I am sensitive to the fact that the increased use—indeed, the greatly increased use—of Grand Committees to suit the interests of the executive, especially after the debate we had in the House on this Bill going into Grand Committee, obviously raises the problem pretty often. I quite understand that proceedings in Grand Committee cannot be adjourned every time any Member or a few Members of a Grand Committee have an interest in what is going on in the Chamber. That is the way in which the reforms have been interpreted. However, I have looked again, and I find it hard to believe that that is, in fact, what the report we adopted in the House envisaged.
  The Fire Services Bill is a measure of constitutional importance in the view of a number of Members of your Lordships' House. It was first scheduled on Monday, then the Chief Whip proposed that it should be scheduled for Tuesday. At that point, some of us had our names down to debate the Bill. It was then changed to a date which did, as the others did not, coincide or conflict with the proceedings in Grand Committee. Some of us had already put our names down to amendments in Grand Committee. So the third rescheduling meant that this conflict would
  GC 356
  inevitably arise if the Bill was likely to be debated earlier than 7.30. The Government knew that, and they knew it might well require some of us to be in two places at once, if only to meet the requirements of our names being down on both lists. Eager though we are to put ourselves at the service of the House, this degree of agile versatility is not available to us or, I think, to anyone.
  In a sense this is the first time that this problem has emerged. It is likely to arise again when Bills of even greater constitutional importance are debated in the Chamber and the Government choose to propose that another Bill coincide with it in Grand Committee. I have looked very carefully at the Companion. While I do not wish to elaborate the case now, under paragraphs 689 and 690, the inability of a Grand Committee to have a Division on a procedural matter, as against a substantive question on the Bill before it, is not at all clear. I do not wish to press the point now, but I refer it to those Members of the Committee who are interested in just what a Grand Committee can do in the face of the stultification of its debates for those who have put their names to amendments in the Chamber, according to the arrangements in the House, to constitutionally important Bills.
  I very much hope that some accommodation might be suggested because I do not believe that the problem will be very acute tonight. It is said that the Fire Services Bill may be debated at 5.30, but that seems slightly optimistic. A very short period of time could be sufficient to avoid the problem.
  With deep gratitude, I have pursued the points sufficiently with the leave of Members of the Committee. It remains for me to hope that a statement can be made on the Government's behalf to look at this again and not give a simple "no" to the request, but to realise that they are in face of a new problem created by the new procedures. In the interests of the House as a whole—and this Grand Committee is to sit as though it were a Committee of the House, with certain exceptions, which need to be carefully looked at—I hope they can make a statement other than a blanket "no". Having said that, I shall be withdrawing the amendment.
  4 p.m.
  Lord Filkin: I shall respond for the Government. I start by thanking my noble friend Lord Wedderburn for the way in which he has made his case. It will not surprise the Committee to hear that we see extreme difficulties in acceding to the request.
  First, the business of the House is fixed after careful discussions between the usual channels. It is a Herculean task to try to negotiate how the House's business will be dealt with between the parties in ways that are as fair as possible to all interests. The Government, as the Committee well knows, have no monopoly on that process. The inevitable pain of those processes means that almost every day someone is unhappy with the result. That is why officials, if not Chief Whips, have a difficult task in that process.

  GC 357
  Secondly, the House has agreed to the use of Grand Committee. In doing so, it is explicit —if not, it is certainly implicit —that at times the Grand Committee will be sitting while other business is taking place in the Chamber. That is almost axiomatic. Therefore, there are bound to be occasions, both in this House and in another place, when a busy House has parallel work streams, which means that all Members have difficult choices to make. The sadness is that one cannot possibly organise the business of the House through the usual channels in a way that would meet the wishes of' all the more than 600 Members.
  By implication of what I have said, it is not out of any obduracy on the Government's part; it is impractical and impossible—I put it at its clearest—for every Grand Committee to be brought to a stop because one Member, quite legitimately and understandably, has pressing interests either in the House or elsewhere. If so, Grand Committees would never sit.
  The point made by my noble friend Lord Wedderburn is not quite as extreme as that. I do not think that he was being extreme at all. He was really talking about Bills that were constitutional. I hear what he says about the Fire Service Bill, but my limited experience of the House is that Members tend to feel that there is a constitutional element to virtually every Bill about which they feel passionate. They are not being duplicitous, but they believe that the issue is such a significant one that it goes to the heart of our state and national relationships. I wished to explain those reasons why the Government do not feel that this is a practical suggestion.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Am I right to say that this is an experiment; that the Grand Committee system is not necessarily permanent? The noble Lord has made a very important point. I already have an acute conflict of interest. I am sure that we shall have many more. Being a Peer is not really supposed to be about being asked to be in two places at once on two crucial issues, both of which are legislative. It really is not.
  Knowing of the noble Lord's expertise, the Fire Service Bill is obviously extremely important to him. It is important to us all, but he will have a big contribution to make to it and he has a big contribution to make to this Committee. So there are problems. The Government cannot just say, "The usual channels have done this and so we shall not think about it any more". I think that the usual channels will hear about this. I just wished to say that the noble Lord is not alone in his problems.
  Lord Filkin: In what I said, I sought to indicate that I was respectful of the fact that however the Business of the House is organised, it always causes discomfort and problems to Members. The point being advanced is that the Grand Committee may create slightly more inconvenience. I hear the point.
  I am reminded that Grand Committees are not experimental but are part of our Companion. Nevertheless, it is open to the House to decide how it wants to review its arrangements at any appropriate
  GC 358
  point. I do not think that now is the time to go into the matter. Clearly, Members have strong views on these issues. I suggest that an appropriate course of action to follow is for them to make those known, perhaps in writing, to the usual channels.
  Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 51 not moved.]
  Clause 6 agreed to.
  Clause 7 [Identity al person arrested]:
  Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart Amendment No. 52:
  Page 5, line 9, leave out subsection (3).
  The noble Lord said: Clause 7 deals with the identity of a person arrested and requires a judge to be satisfied that the person arrested is, in fact, the person in respect of whom the warrant was issued. That is provided by subsection (2), which states:
  "The judge must decide whether the person brought before him is the person in respect of whom … the warrant … Has issued".
  Subsection (3) then states:
  "The judge must decide the question in subsection (2) on a balance of probabilities".
  Amendment No. 52 would remove subsection (3). It has the same purpose as Amendment No. 53, but it removes the whole subsection, instead of altering the words,
  "on a balance of probabilities",
  to, "beyond reasonable doubt".
  The Extradition Bill raises the issue of the liberty of the subject. "Liberty of the subject" is an archaic phrase, because it now applies to non-subjects as well as to subjects of the Queen. For category 1 states, with which the clause deals, there is no need to produce supporting evidence of the person's guilt, but it is necessary for the judge to be satisfied that the person before him or her is in fact the person named in the order, because to send the wrong person back to face a criminal trial is a serious miscarriage of justice, even if the mistake was discovered fairly swiftly after the extradition. Of course, one must remember the unfortunate gentleman, Mr Bond, the businessman arrested in South Africa on a warrant issued due to mistaken identity.
  Judges should not send people back if the decision that they reach is, "This is probably the same person, but we are by no means certain". If the decision is to be made on the balance of probabilities, that is what judges will have to do. That would be a serious mistake.
  I propose the removal of subsection (3) altogether rather than its amendment because I prefer to avoid the use of the words, "beyond reasonable doubt". Those words themselves are now somewhat out of date—for example, they are no longer be used in giving directions to juries in criminal trials, where a .judge is required to say, "You must be sure".
  In the absence of subsection (3), my understanding is that the court would normally apply the criminal standard of proof, or something close to it—as it does,

  GC 359
  for example, in cases in where an allegation of fraud is made in a civil action and the court does not decide on the balance of probabilities, but on a higher standard of proof. That is appropriate, but I do not think it necessary to specify the standard of proof in the Bill; it is adequate to leave that to the courts. My strong opinion is that the balance of probabilities is not the right test to apply here. I beg to move.
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale): If Amendment No. 52 were agreed to, I could not call Amendments Nos. 53 or 54.
  Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I have three amendments in this group . As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said, Amendment No. 53 addresses precisely the same issue in respect of Part 1 arrests. Amendment No. 190 deals with category 2 territory arrests—the same issue. However, Amendment No. 54 comes from a slightly different angle in seeking to answer the question posed by the noble Lord in respect of our chosen wording.
  As the noble Lord said, these amendments focus on Clause 7, on the "Identity of person arrested"—which, as he rightly said, is the first thing to be established at the initial hearing. We have taken up Amendments Nos. 53 and 190 from Liberty and Amendment No. 54 from Justice because of concerns about the drafting of the Clause 7 provisions for establishing the identity of the arrested person. That is why we have had a slightly less root-and-branch approach than the one that the noble Lord recommends.
  Amendments Nos. 53 and 190 propose a change in subsection (3) from the civil "balance of probabilities" to the criminal test of "beyond reasonable doubt". We know that the civil test is considerably less stringent. In fact, Liberty has commented in its briefing, which I am sure that other noble Lords have received, that it is of "an unacceptable standard".
  I understand the arguments which are undoubtedly in the Minister's brief against the proposed change. The initial hearing is a preliminary step and not part of the criminal procedure. However, we think that the amendment is justified for the following reasons. As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, again pointed out, no prima facie evidence is being provided. So long as the judge believes that the person in front of him is the same as the person named on the warrant, remand and further arrangements for the extradition will ensue automatically. If the judge is not satisfied, the person will be discharged.
  We do not understand—and we share the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, about this—how the judge will be able to satisfy himself on a balance of probabilities test. What identification methods will be used? There are many cases of stolen identity; examples have already been given. Indeed, noble Lords whose credit cards are stolen are probably contributing to the creation of fresh identities. Occasionally hugely high-profile cases come to light, such as that of Mr Derek Bond. However, it is
  GC 360
  remarkably difficult to assert one's innocence if for all intents and purposes it appears that one is the aforementioned person.
  I turn briefly to Amendment No. 54, the amendment put forward by Justice. It comments that,
  "as currently drafted, clause 7 contains no specification on the evidential standard required or where the burden of proof lies in determining the identity of the accused. The drafting appears to create the role of an investigating magistrate, unknown to UK law. The proposed amendment would clarify this position in the interests of procedural rigour".
  Justice's point is essentially to establish whether it is the judge or the prosecution—one or the other—who should have the task of asserting the person's identity. Justice would like the Bill to state clearly that it is for the prosecution to satisfy the judge that the "Mr Smith" before them is the same "Mr Smith" as named in the arrest warrant. Currently the Bill is vague about how the judge is to make his decision and on what evidence.
  Although we understand and support the objective of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, we believe that in the interest of clarity it would be best if identity test procedures were made clear in the Bill. That is why we have tabled the additional amendments in this group.
  4.15 p.m.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: I support what the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said, and I prefer his approach to that set out in Amendment No. 53. I entirely agree with him that the use of the words. "beyond reasonable doubt", is, in this day and age, otiose. There is a duty on the authorities to establish that they have the right person. The argument that he adduced is entirely right.
  In criminal law, or something akin to criminal law, the words,
  "on a balance of probabilities",
  should not be used. Although I have something else to say about that, I do not want to delay the Committee, but the arguments offered to the Committee by the noble Lord are entirely right. Although he is of course obliged to withdraw the amendment, I hope that he will bring it back—or, better still, I hope that my noble friend will accommodate it.
  Viscount Bledisloe: I entirely support Amendment No. 54, because it lays down, if we are to decide on the balance of probabilities, on whom the onus lies. Without Amendment No. 54, if the judge thinks that the balance is exactly 50:50, there is no indication in the Bill which way he should go. That is not a silly point. Frequently in civil cases, the judge says, "I do not know. Therefore, the plaintiff has failed to prove his case". If we are to decide something on the balance of probabilities, we must know who is the winner and who is the loser at a straight 50:50 point. So, in my view, Amendment No. 54 is undoubtedly necessary, if the Bill is otherwise unamended.
  Amendments Nos. 52 and 53 are apparently intended to achieve roughly the same thing: to remove the civil level of proof and insert the criminal one. However, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, I have no doubt that if we are to do that at all, the right

  GC 361
  way to do so is that suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, and not that suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart.
  The amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, would leave the court entirely unguided as to what is the test. He said, "Well, it will be either the same as the criminal proof, or something very like it, as happens in civil court cases". With respect, he is incorrect about civil court cases. In civil court cases, the burden of proof remains the same—namely, a balance of probability—but the court says, "If you are making a serious charge, you must prove it rather more convincingly". The balance of probability remains the test.
  The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, laughs at that formulation; others have laughed, but it is in fact the formulation of the courts. So he proposes that we leave the provision, not on the straight principle that 51 per cent will do, but not saying whether the criminal test or something vague in between will apply. if it is to be changed, it must be changed to something specific.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: We are dealing, are we not, as the noble Lord. Lord Goodhart, said, with the issue of the liberty of the subject? That is entirely different from the notion that the noble Viscount advanced regarding fraud in civil cases.
  Viscount Bledisloe: I am not at the moment arguing the merits of whether a change should be made. I am saying merely that if a change is to be made—I rather doubt that it should, but still—undoubtedly the right way to do so is that suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, not the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart.
  Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: I strongly support what was said by the noble Lords, Lord Goodhart and Lord Hodgson, with regard to the principle that the clause needs to be changed. We must remember that we are dealing with a Part 1 arrest warrant and the only thing the judge will have to decide is whether the person in front of him is the person to whom the warrant refers.
  Looking at the information required to accompany the warrant, one sees that that the first thing listed in Clause 2(4)(a) is the person's identity. It is obvious that that must he a matter on which the judge must be sure. The idea that we should send people hack for trial, even to another Part 1 country, on the basis that on the whole the judge believes that it is probably the right person is totally unsuitable. Therefore, I strongly support the proposal that the provision needs to be changed.
  The noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, raised the argument about the best way to do that. First, if the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, is right and is satisfied that if we said nothing, the judge would be required to he sure, on balance I support his approach. On the other hand, if there is any hesitation about it, we had better spell it out, as is done in the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, by specifying "beyond reasonable doubt". I accept the point made that on the whole, these days, a judge in summing up
  GC 362
  to the jury tells them that they must be satisfied so that they are sure rather than satisfied beyond reasonable doubt.
  I hope that the two parties can somehow get together and agree on wording before the matter comes to be voted on in the House—if it must.
  Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I agree with all Members of the Committee who have spoken to say that the matter cannot be left where it is. I am not sufficient of a criminal lawyer to know whether "balance of probabilities" should be replaced by the reasonable doubt test or some test saying, "You have to be sure". However, something of the kind must be specified. I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, not because he may not be absolutely right but because to leave the matter in silence is to invite protracted argument in some court or another as to exactly what test the Bill requires.
  There is a precedent in employment law, when in the middle of the darkest days of that legislation employment tribunals were relieved, it was said, of having any test of burden in deciding on unfair dismissal. They were to decide according to the equities of the case, which was said to remove all questions of burden of proof in a matter. I have never been happy with that arid some cases have illustrated how improbable it is. But if it is appropriate to employment tribunals, it is not at all appropriate to a case which involves the liberty of the citizen, which I must express is a liberty in England of the subject.
  The amendment which seems to me to be right—even if the Government resist everything else, they must be pressed on it on Report—is Amendment No. 54. At least it says something about the burden of proving the essential point that is likely to arise in such proceedings: "Who is the person whom you have arrested?". That burden must rest on the prosecution. It must take that burden and show that it is reasonably sure that the person is the man or woman in question.
  I hope that the Government will not require us to pursue the matter on Report—which I otherwise encourage noble Lords to do—and that they will look again at subsection (3) and make the situation clear.
  Lord Filkin: This is the first time we have talked about the initial hearing in Grand Committee on the Bill. In order to position our discussion, perhaps I may indicate that at the initial hearing the district judge must do a number of things. He must inform the person of the contents of the warrant; he must give the person information about the possibility and the consequences of consenting to extradition; he must fix a date for the main extradition hearing; and he must decide whether to grant the person bail or to remand him in custody.
  The first thing he must do is decide whether the person before him is the person whose extradition has been sought. At this stage, the judge is not considering whether the extradition should take place; still less whether the person is guilty of the crime. He is simply

  GC 363
  reaching a view as to whether the person whose extradition has been sought and the person before him are one and the same.
  As we have indicated, there are three options. The Bill leaves the court unguided on this matter—which is where we as the Government started—or the standard of proof should be specified in some way. That was the view in another place when the Government were urged to specify a standard of proof. As regards the standard of proof, there are only two options; balance of probability or beyond reasonable doubt.
  In another place, the Government accepted that to leave the standard of proof completely open, as was argued, merited consideration. We therefore brought forward an amendment on Report to specify it. That was accepted by another place—not that that is necessarily relevant to our consideration. Nevertheless, that was the consequence of those discussions.
  Amendment No. 52 would restore the position to the previous ambiguity, which was criticised by Liberal Democrats in another place. Again, that does not bind us in this House, as we well know. Its overall effect is that it would be left to the court to determine what standard of proof should apply. My view is that this is an important issue on which Parliament should take a view. We have been persuaded from our original position in that respect.
  The amendment made in another place imposed the balance of probabilities. Let me explain why that was chosen and why I think it is right. First, we are not talking about a criminal prosecution. Matters of guilt or innocence are matters for the trial court in the requesting country, including as part of a defence, "It wasn't me, guy. I wasn't there at the time.". That is a perfectly valid point which can be raised at the full hearing.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: When the judge in chambers considers bail, he is not considering the merits or demerits of the prosecution. What is the difference?
  Lord Filkin: I agree and I was not referring to bail. I was referring to the judge's decision as to whether he considered that the person before him was the person for whom the extradition request had been made.
  I give an illustration of why we believe that the test of the balance of probabilities is appropriate, bearing in mind that this is not the trial but a decision on whether to release someone straight away or to send him forward to a trial. I shall illustrate it by referring to the terrible case of Detective Constable Stephen Oake who was murdered in Manchester in January this year.
  That was not an extradition case and in that sense it is not on all fours, but in terms of when he came before the courts, there was enormous difficulty in being sure what was the person's name. The person put forward at least three names, or could have claimed them from the documentation he had.
  In that situation when there was documentation on him, and assuming for the sake of argument that the person had committed an outrage in another country
  GC 364
  and had fled to Britain, on the balance of probability the judge could not have decided that it was beyond reasonable doubt that he was one of three people. On the test of balance of proof, the judge would be forced to release that person and for obvious reasons we believe that that is wrong. It does not of course deny that person the opportunity to put in his defence at a later stage in the process, "It is not me. Here is my evidence as to why it is not me.".
  I turn to the question raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, about 50/50 cases, which may be rare or not. To a lay person, it ought to be the inference that if, as we believe, the balance of probability is the test, it is up to the prosecution to make the case that on the balance of probability this is the person. I am giving a 0.1 per cent over the 50 per cent, but I shall take the point away and confirm whether that is our firm position.
  For the reasons I have given, we were advised in another place that the standard of proof ought to be specified. We have listened to that, but if we took the "beyond reasonable doubt" standard, people would not be brought to trial when they should be and when they would be able to make powerful arguments, if it were the case, that it is not them and that they should be acquitted. I therefore hope the noble Lord will be minded to withdraw his amendment, with my assurance that we will reflect on the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe.
  4.30 p.m.
  Lord Goodhart: I am grateful for the support which the amendment has received from most of those who have spoken in the debate. I am not satisfied that the Minister has produced an argument which convinces me that there are cases in which the interest of justice requires that the standard should be less than being sure.
  I would be happy to take on board the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, and I hope to be able to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, and put forward an amendment in joint names. I imagine that in one form or another the matter is likely to come back at a later stage, but in the mean time I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 53 and 54 not moved.]
  On Question, Whether Clause 7 shall stand part of the Bill?
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I have given the Minister notice and I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I take a moment to raise a question about bail. It is mentioned in Clause 7(9) and I want to clarify how differences in Scots law bail procedures are allowed for in the Bill.
  Recently, the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, was kind enough to convene a meeting at which Scottish officials and the Ministers in the Home Office agreed to meet noble Lords who were interested to look at the Government's proposals in the Bill for bringing Scots

  GC 365
  law into line. Many useful points were made and afterwards a note was sent to those present summing up what had been said.
  One of the matters dealt with was provision for bail. Bail procedures are different in Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom. My understanding is that under the Bill, Scotland will continue to operate its own bail arrangements and that this is made possible by Clause 194. The clause includes an order-making power which allows Scottish Ministers to amend the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 as is necessary for the purposes of the Bill. I speak as an amateur having studied the notes.
  My question is simply this. Does Clause 194 bring the bail arrangements in Scotland in line with the Bill for the whole of the Bill's provisions? If so, a number of amendments I have on the Marshalled List, which began with the Law Society of Scotland, will be unnecessary. If I can have such an assurance, we shall be able to save the time of the Committee and remove them.
  Lord Filkin: Not for the first time I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, for the skill and vigour with which she probes Scottish matters in our deliberations—that is an important role—and for the way in which she has addressed this issue.
  Let me put on the record that Clause 194 will modify the bail provisions in the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 by inserting a new section specifically relating to bail in extradition proceedings. The new section will ensure that existing Scots law on bail applies to persons facing extradition in so far as that is consistent with the Bill. I can confirm that Clause 194 applies to the whole of the Bill.
  I want to make two points about Scottish bail provisions. Unlike in England and Wales, the police in Scotland have no power to grant bail. However, the Lord Advocate has the power to grant bail to any person charged with any crime or offence. The new section makes it clear that the Lord Advocate can exercise that power in relation to a person subject to extradition proceedings.
  Secondly, the new section also includes an order-making power to enable Scottish Ministers to amend the bail provisions in the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 in so far as is necessary or expedient for the purposes of Clauses 9(2) and 76(2), which relate to the powers of the judge at the extradition hearing. I hope that that is helpful.
  Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Perhaps my noble friend could clarify an issue within this context. It will save time both here and on Report. On our first day in Grand Committee on 3rd June, the Minister said:
  "Our position is that Eurobail and bail is a separate matter from that of the European arrest warrant. That is the current position; we have no current plans to change the system of bail".—[Official Report, 3/6/03; col. GC174.]
  I appreciate that naturally he did not refer to the position under Clause 195 and we now know that the Bill provides for matters in Scotland. It is also true that the answer he gave was in the context of a discussion
  GC 366
  on Eurobail. However, looking ahead not merely to the proceedings of this Grand Committee but also to the Report stage, it is important to know whether in putting aside Eurobail the Government's position is that apart from Scotland, which is provided for, bail is a matter separate from the European arrest warrant and cannot be dealt with under the Bill.
  Previous discussions show that bail arises in a large number of matters, not only here but also in respect of courts in jurisdictions which will issue demands for—I use the word which I know the Minister does not like but which is in the framework decision and its description—surrender. This is a scheme of surrender and therefore the occasions on which bail might or might not be granted either in this jurisdiction or in that of an issuing authority concerns some of us greatly.
  I appreciate that the Eurobail project is a more general issue. Nevertheless, do I take it from what we have heard that the Government would not have a "NO", written in capital letters, to amendments and issues raised here and on Report concerning bail in the context of the European arrest warrant?
  Lord Filkin: The Bill changes domestic law on bail but does not affect the bail law of other countries or impose a system of Eurobail. I stated the Government's position on Eurobail on 3rd June and there is no change to that. As ever, I promise to reflect on what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, and see whether it requires any further clarification on Report. At this point, the position is exactly as I said on 3rd June and I do not expect it to change.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Perhaps I may assist the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn. I was merely talking about amendments which make it possible for Scotland to use its own bail system in the normal course of the Bill. It did not relate to the points that he raised, which I fully understand.
  Clause 7 agreed to.
  Clause 8 [Remand etc.]:
  Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts moved Amendment No. 55:
  Page 5, line 34, leave out paragraph (c) and insert—
  "(c) ensure that the person has received independent legal advice about the implications of giving or withholding consent to extradition;"
  The noble Lord said: Before I speak to this group of amendments, perhaps for the convenience of the Committee I may say that we shall be changing the batting. My noble friend Lady Anelay will not be moving two amendments tabled for debate today. This is an effort to save a little time. They are Amendment No. 60, grouped with Amendments Nos. 60A, 61 and 187 to 189, and Amendment No. 76. At a future date we shall be grouping Clause 21 stand part with Amendments Nos. 84 and 85.
  I make that clear because the group beginning Amendment No. 60 is the point at which the batting changes. My noble friend would have to begin by not moving some amendments.

  GC 367
  I turn to Amendment No. 55, dealing with the initial hearing and legal advice. Amendment No. 55 deals with a Part 1 warrant. Amendment No. 164 deals with extradition to a category 2 country. Amendment No. 176 relates to a provisional arrest. Amendment No. I79 is a consequential amendment and Amendment No. 217, at Clause 125, relates to the consent to extradition (general) where the Secretary of State is involved. My noble friend Lady Carnegy has tabled Amendment No. 218, which concerns the Scottish dimension.
  The amendments focus on the provision of legal advice on the subject of consent. The irrevocable nature of consent and the serious consequences it entails, including in particular the waiver of the specialty rule following extradition, make the provision of free legal advice prior to such consent indispensable. It appears that the Government conceded on this principle at Report stage in another place. We welcomed the words of the Minister, Mr Ainsworth, that amendments would,
  "ensure that the right to legal aid that is enshrined in the Access to Justice Act 1999 applies to the issue of consenting to extradition. They provide that, before a judge accepts a fugitive's consent to extradition, he must check that the person had the opportunity to receive independent legal advice".—[Official Report, Commons, 25/3/03; col. 168.]
  The principle of legal advice prior to consent has therefore been accepted by the Government. I want now to focus on what our amendments aim to do specifically.
  Amendments Nos. 55, 164, 178 and 179 focus on the same point. The Government amendments at Report in another place made some progress by ensuring that the judge cannot accept someone's consent unless he has checked the person has had access to independent legal advice prior to consent. This focuses on the consent clauses—that is, Clause 44 in Part 1 and Clause 125 in Part 2. Our amendments would require the independent legal advice to be introduced at an earlier stage; that is, when the judge first mentions consent at the initial hearing in Clauses 8, 71 and 73 for Parts 1 and 2 respectively.
  Clause 8, which deals with the remand stage of the initial hearing, requires the judge to give the person the required information about consent as set out in subsection (1)(c). We think that inherently unsatisfactory from the point of view of both the person concerned and the judge. Our amendment is designed to replace the role of the judge with that of an independent legal adviser who would explain not only about the right to give or withhold consent but, perhaps more importantly, the implication of so doing.
  There is an important difference between having an independent legal adviser at this stage, rather than just at the giving of consent stage of Clauses 44 or 125, as the latter might well not allow the person time to think, consult and reflect on which course he should best take. Clauses 44 and 125 appear only to ensure that the
  GC 368
  person is legally represented at the time he gives consent and that he knows about his rights to apply for legal aid.
  Amendment No. 217 focuses on Clause 125, the Part 2 consent clause. On a probing basis, we propose replacing subsection (3)(b), which says that consent is irrevocable, with the provision that consent is valid only if the person has had access to independent legal advice. In view of the support he has given me so many times in our last two sittings. I do not wish to pre-empt the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, who, from the look of Amendment No. 56, which is grouped separately, is keen to have a debate about whether consent should be irrevocable. The amendment is merely an alternative way of drafting the independent legal advice provision into Clause 125.
  Amendment No. 97, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, raises an interesting point about whether, under the circumstances, an application for legal aid would have been refused or withdrawn. I look forward to hearing from the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and to the Minister's reply.
  To summarise, the provision of legal aid prior to consent is a matter of the utmost importance. In order for consent to extradition to be informed, an individual should have received independent legal advice. As the Law Society of Scotland has stressed, a judge may be able to provide an explanation of consent but he cannot provide the necessary legal advice. The amendments have been tabled in an effort to ensure the inclusion of such a provision in the Bill so that this procedure takes place at an early stage of the proceedings, thus meeting the standard in terms of fundamental legal rights which our fellow citizens require and are entitled to expect. I beg to move.
  4.45 p.m.
  Lord Goodhart: Amendment No. 97 in the group stands in my name. It is proposed by Justice and would amend Clause 44, which provides that the person may not give his consent under the section unless he is legally represented before the appropriate judge at the time he gives consent or if subsection (6) applies. Subsection (6) applies if the person has been informed of his right to apply for legal aid and has had the opportunity to apply but has refused or failed to apply. That is understandable. Incidentally, I think I have just spotted a defect, in that "section" in subsection (6) should instead be "subsection". The Government might wish to take that up. Subsection (6) also applies if a person has applied for legal aid but his application has been refused or if he has been granted legal aid but it was withdrawn.
  Amendment No. 97 would remove paragraphs (b) and (c) from subsection (6). This is a probing amendment and has been proposed by Justice. It is plainly desirable that the subject of a warrant should be advised before consenting to extradition and should be properly represented at the court hearing at which the extradition is ordered. One cannot force a person to be represented if they are legally competent and they

  GC 369
  refuse to instruct a lawyer to represent them. But it is hard to see any other ground on which the court hearing should be held without representation.
  Paragraphs (b) and (c) exclude the need if legal aid has been refused or, having initially been granted, has been withdrawn. The lack of means is no longer a bar to grant of criminal legal aid. We assume that representation under Clause 44 will he treated as criminal legal aid for this purpose, although we would like assurance on that point.
  The merit test would, it seems, of necessity he satisfied at the court hearing. Therefore, the question arises: what arc the circumstances in which either paragraph (b) or (c) of subsection (6) might need to be relied upon? If the Minister can produce an example in which it might be necessary and reasonable to rely on paragraphs (b) and (c), I will happily withdraw the amendment and not bring it back. But I would like to know the kind of circumstances in which it is contemplated that paragraphs (b) and (c) might need to he relied upon.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: Does my noble friend have any plans to introduce something of this kind by way of regulation? In principle, I very much agree with what has been said for the Opposition by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. This issue of representation is very important, but, in my view, it can he dealt with procedurally as well as in the Bill.
  It is incumbent upon my noble friend to say what are his intentions. At the moment, the whole thing is shrouded in mystery. I hope he can help the Committee to find a way through this shroud.
  Viscount Bledisloe: I venture to suggest that both these amendments go too far. Amendment No. 55, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, makes it imperative that the judge ensures that the person has received independent legal advice. He may have refused it. The amendment does not say, "received or had available", it just says "received". So the man who does not want to be extradited refuses to see a lawyer; therefore, he has not received legal advice, and the judge has to discharge him.
  Equally, the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, would delete the provision covering a person who was granted legal aid but the legal aid was withdrawn. Let us suppose it was withdrawn because the person in question was racially abusive to the lawyer appointed and assaulted him. If the person knows that once legal aid has been withdrawn for that sort of reason, he cannot be sent back, it seems a rather easy way out of extradition.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: The lawyer may have deserved it.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Amendment No. 218 in my name would amend Clause 125; it makes a small but necessary point about the matter of consent in Scotland. Subsection (9) states that, on consent, a person will be treated as legally represented only if,
  "he has the assistance of counsel or a solicitor".
  GC 370
  The Law Society of Scotland points out that in Scotland there is an alternative. A solicitor could instruct a solicitor-advocate to represent his client—that is, a solicitor who has been granted rights of audience in various courts, including the High Court of Justiciary. To ensure that this is possible, this amendment would need to be inserted.
  I should add, with apologies, that I should have tabled a similar amendment to Clause 44 relating to Part 1 consents. This amendment relates to Part 2. 1 apologise for that omission, but I think the point is made with this single amendment.
  Unless it is absolutely certain that the word "counsel" in the Bill includes solicitor-advocates in Scotland, I hope the Government will accept the amendment.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful to all noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. The amendments relate to the important issue of consent to extradition and, specifically, to the legal advice that is available to persons in such circumstances.
  [The Sitting was suspended for a Division in the House from 4.56 to 5.7 p.m.]
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: As I was about to say, it is worth recording that somewhere between a quarter and a third of those who are the subject of extradition proceedings in this country consent to extradition, so it is not an insignificant issue. That makes it all the more important that those concerned understand the full implications of giving consent. For that reason, the judge is required at the initial hearing to explain to the fugitive about the possibility of giving consent and the consequences of so doing.
  We have gone further than that. Under Clause 44(5) and (6) and the corresponding provisions for Part 2 in Clause 125, the judge is not able to accept the fugitive's consent unless the fugitive has had the opportunity to take independent legal advice. I think that is pretty much what the amendments standing in the name of the official Opposition seek to achieve. I hope that they will accept that, on this occasion, we are, in effect, a step ahead of them.
  The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, by contrast, in his probing amendment, is aware of what the Bill provides but would like some changes. In particular, he seeks to remove Clause 44(6)(b) and (c). I hope I can also reassure him that every person who is arrested in an extradition case has the same entitlement to independent legal advice as those arrested in purely domestic cases. The duty solicitor scheme is designed to ensure that this advice is available before the first court appearance. In the extradition context, this means that legal aid is available before the fugitive has any opportunity to consent to extradition.
  As I am sure noble Lords are aware, the availability of legal aid is no longer based on a means test but instead on an interests of justice test—a merits test. Anyone who faces the prospect of imprisonment is entitled to legal aid. By definition, therefore, everyone in an extradition case is entitled to legal aid. However. it is not impossible that the rules may change, though

  GC 371
  I hasten to add that the Government have no plans to do so. At some future point, certain people, including those in extradition cases, may not be entitled to legal aid. That is a decision of Parliament. I do not see that such people should be prevented from being able to consent to extradition if that is their wish, particularly as they might well have made their own arrangements for legal advice.
  Clause 44(6)(c) deals with legal aid being withdrawn. The noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, got it absolutely right: it is very rare for this to happen, but it can happen in extreme cases where a person is obviously abusing the system by constantly seeking to dismiss his legal representative or by being rude, violent or unpleasant to his lawyer. It is very rare, but if a person abuses the system in this way and then wants to consent to extradition, we should not seek to stop this happening.
  The effect of the Liberal Democrat amendment would be that a consenting defendant would be made to go through the whole extradition process, impacting not just on court time but also on costs and, possibly, the defendant's own well-being.
  Amendment No. 218, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, would ensure that the definition of being legally represented before the appropriate judge will extend in Scotland to solicitor-advocates. I can assure her that this is unnecessary, as solicitors in Scotland who enjoy, as she said, extended rights of audience, are still solicitors. They are therefore caught by the reference to "solicitor" in Clause 125(9). In every eventuality, the references are the same and the effect is the same. I hope that noble Lords and the noble Baroness will see that there is no further need to pursue these matters.
  Lord Goodhart: I am grateful to the Minister. I am particularly relieved at his assurance that the criminal merits test will be applied here. I see some force in the argument relating to Clause 44(6)(c), as pointed out by both the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, and the Minister, in that the person against whom an extradition order is sought might have had legal aid withdrawn because of gross misconduct. However, I found the Minister's argument on Clause 44(6)(b) distinctly unconvincing. If this is a protection of people facing extradition against the possibility that the rules might change as to the merits test, which was what I understood the Minister to say, I cannot see why Clause 44(6)(b) is relevant. Clause 44(6)(a), by necessary implication, means that there must be a right to legal aid which cannot be withdrawn. I should be reluctant to bring back an amendment which, it seems, would do no more than remove what appear to be some unnecessary words that would, in practice, have no effect. However, I will read what the Minister has said and consider the argument.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: May I clarify what the Minister said in response to Amendment No. 218? I understood him to say that a solicitor advocate is still a solicitor and so he is included as a solicitor. My understanding was that the word "counsel"
  GC 372
  represented the function in the High Court. My question was whether "counsel" included the solicitor-advocate. I want to be quite clear about this.
  5.15 p.m.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: It does cover the term.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: The word "counsel" includes the solicitor-advocate?
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: Yes.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: That is not what the Minister said, actually. I just wanted to be quite sure. Thank you very much.
  Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: I, too, am grateful to the Minister for his comments. I understand the defects in the drafting as regards, "receiving independent legal advice". The fact that I did not see how such provision might be abused shows that I have lived in a very sheltered world. Clearly it is a drafting defect. There is another error. Clause 71(7) should have been struck out as subsidiary to Amendment No. 164. I point that out before anyone else does. We were concerned about the timing. That is the real issue. Clause 44 comes into play when the whole procedure is under way. We are discussing the issue under Clause 8, which deals with the initial remand hearing. We wanted to give the person time to reflect. I am not quite clear, but the Minister can probably tell us, whether it is envisaged that after Clause 44 comes into play—which is when the train is rolling; and the Bill's purpose is to enable the train to roll swiftly—the procedure will allow adequate time for the person to obtain that advice. We are not arguing against what the Minister said. We are merely saying, "Should it not come a littler earlier so that the person has a chance to get legal advice?"
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: At the initial hearing the judge must provide the person affected with the required information about consent. The judge must do that right at the very beginning of the process. The judge cannot accept consent unless the person has had access to legal advice. There is no way in which the person can consent without proper understanding of what is involved or without legal advice. There is absolutely no way in which that can happen. At that initial hearing—at the remand hearing, if you like—the judge will explain the position and set it out quite clearly. He or she will ensure that the person affected understands the situation so that he can be given proper and independent legal advice before the process goes any further. The judge cannot accept consent without the person having that understanding.
  Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: That will happen even under the proceedings in Clause 8, at the very beginning of the process.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: That is right; yes.
  Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: That is reassuring. We should like to look through the Minister's comments, but it sounds as though he has produced a satisfactory answer. If we may, we will examine his comments, consult and ensure that we have covered all the bases. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Wedderburn of Charlton Lord Wedderburn of Charlton moved Amendment No. 56:
  Page 5, line 42, leave out "and is irrevocable"
  The noble Lord said: I am glad to move the amendment now as I had not realised some of the aspects of the problems surrounding consent that were exposed by the previous debate. I wanted to move Amendment No. 56 separately—I am almost tempted to say, in the words of the best prospectus ever issued for investment, in 1820—"for a purpose which shall in due time be revealed".
  Lord Goodhart: Surely it was 1720.
  Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Did I say 1820? It was the bubble Act, of course. However, this is no bubble; this is a very serious case. The person who gives consent is not allowed to revoke it. The essential question raised by the amendment is: why? In the ordinary case, especially subject to all the problems in Clauses 44 and 45, one could expect to be whisked off within 10 days.
  I understand all the points about representation and explanation by the judge, although we have seen that, in fact, representation is rather more precarious than has been suggested. The judge will do his best. However, particular issues arise under consent. The first is that, under Article 13(4) of the framework decision,
  "In principle, consent may not be revoked".
  The Government would say, "We're just following the framework decision". However, Article 13(4) also provides that not only consent but also renunciation of the specialty rule may be revoked if the domestic law of a state so states. The governments of Belgium, Denmark, Ireland, Finland and Sweden made the decision to notify the secretariat, which is required, with four of them allowing revocation of both consent and renunciation, and Belgium allowing only revocation of consent.
  The first question is why did the Minister not join in their reasons for doing so. Why did he not take any steps in regard to consent, and what representations did he seek or obtain relating to that? The United Kingdom Government did not do so and did not give a notification to the General Secretariat. That is a point to which I want to return.
  After failing to do so, the Government may rely upon that failure; but that has very important consequences for what we in Parliament can do. However, before dealing with that, I should like to ask a second question. Does consent under the Bill as it stands open up all the problems which many noble Lords on this Committee, learned and otherwise, have
  GC 374
  encountered in their studies and experience with regard to real and apparent consent? However hard the judge tries, the person who consented may have been at all material times under the influence of something rather horrible, possibly drugs; under the teachings of a mystic, which is harder to spot; or even on the advice of a singing master—which. as noble Lords will recall, arose in some of the cases concerned with real and apparent consent in Kenny's criminal cases. I shall not go through the details of all of those. However, just how far is this going to open up any arguments on real or apparent consent?
  I return to the Minister's position. It really will not do for the executive to say to some unfortunate person who may deny he is the right person and wish to revoke a consent which he has already given to his surrender, "I am terribly sorry, but you don't have any right to withdraw your consent to be surrendered to this foreign jurisdiction—especially for some obscure crime such as swindling which you did not come across in studying for your degree. Of course we recognise that it was all a mistake which no one spotted that you gave your consent after being misled on the circumstances. It is all a terrible pity, but off you go! There's very little we can do about it now. You see, we didn't tell the General Secretariat that we wanted to retain the ability to revoke consent". Surely that is not a satisfactory position.
  The Minister's responsibility goes rather further than that. On 1st May, on Second Reading of the Bill, he said:
  "the position is that Parliament is sovereign and Parliament can do what it wishes in this respect".
  I interpose to say that the "respect" was in a general sense material to this discussion. He went on to say:
  "Clearly, if there were to be a discontinuity between our treaty obligations and our own lain, that is another issue that goes further. But Parliament is sovereign".—[Official Report, 1/5/03; col. 858.]
  Does he stick to that in relation to consent? He failed to give a notification to the General Secretariat. He failed to reserve the right to revoke consent, as the five governments I cited did. Is he now saying that Parliament can give a right to revoke consent or not?
  If the Minister does not say that, there is not much point in debating this amendment. I should have to withdraw it very quickly because Parliament is not sovereign on the matter. This is a difficulty that has been created entirely by the executive, by not giving notice and not providing for domestic law to give this right to someone whose consent was given in circumstances that led to his being misled, which was not spotted. I know that judges are very clever, but with the greatest respect, just occasionally they do not spot something. In the proceedings it may not be spotted that the person is misled.
  I adhere to what I said on a previous amendment. I do not think that, where it could be drafted otherwise, this Bill should allow for one person, whoever he is, to be sent off to trial in a foreign jurisdiction where that is undesirable and unjustifiable. I believe that those circumstances could arise. They are not merely a matter of fancy; they are a matter of real life.

  GC 375
  Therefore, in three respects this amendment poses a problem for the Government. First, why do we think that consent should be irrevocable in all circumstances? Should there be no exception at all? Secondly, what were the reasons for not giving domestic law the opportunity to provide for at least something in relation to revocation of consent? Thirdly, does the Minister agree that we can now legislate on the matter despite his failure to notify the secretariat under the framework decision? I beg to move.
  Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: After the challenging remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, I hesitate to get involved. We have some concern about the abolition or removal of irrevocability because it could be open to abuse and exploitation by those wishing to delay the process of their extradition. As we have said from the beginning, we share the Government's view that the extradition process has become unduly elongated and should be speeded up. Whether that should be done in Part 1 or Part 2 is another issue, but we think that the process should be speeded up. Our bottom line—in the modern phrase—is that as long as the person has proper independent legal advice, as we were discussing a moment ago, and therefore clearly knows the implications of giving or refusing consent, the consent once given should be considered binding.
  I am not saying that there is not a case for irrevocability. For example, a warrant could be served on someone who thinks that he is innocent. He may nevertheless decide to go to the foreign country in order to face trial and get it over with. He may then find himself remanded in custody in a way which was not envisaged. So there are dangers. Those of us who have read the briefings from Fair Trials Abroad have seen some pretty horrendous examples of how clearly innocent people can be convicted and imprisoned.
  We feel that we are back to the need to strike a balance between the wish to ensure that the guilty are swiftly punished and the wish to protect the rights of the innocent. We feel that, on balance, the amendment pushes the envelope a little too far.
  5.30 p.m.
  Viscount Bledisloe: I venture to doubt that the problem adumbrated by the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, is a real one. You need to revoke a consent only if it is a valid consent. If the consent has been obtained by fraud, duress or under an incapacity then it is not a valid consent. The English judiciary is perfectly capable and ingenious enough to say, "That is not a valid consent. It is not a question of revoking it. I find that although the piece of paper was filled in, the consent was in fact never given. In those unusual circumstances the man can be let free". Plainly, however, in a normal case, he cannot just change his mind, any more than the man who pleaded guilty can just change his mind. I venture to think that the judiciary will easily solve the scenario, if it ever arises, which the noble Lord has adumbrated.
  Lord Goodhart: I am going to be, I think, a little more sympathetic to the amendment than the previous
  GC 376
  speakers. To give an unqualified right of revocation of consent might in some circumstances encourage people against whom a warrant is issued to play games with the legal system by giving consent and then being able to revoke it any time before they are actually put on the aeroplane and the aeroplane takes off. However, I think that there are circumstances in which it is possible that a right of revocation should be allowed. For example, if there is a substantial change of circumstances—say a regime change in the country to which the extradition is to be made, and as a result of that regime change the person who is to be extradited has genuine reasons for fearing that he might not get a fair trial—then I think that there would be justification for saying that there should be a chance to revoke.
  So while I cannot support the amendment as it stands, if the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, brought back an amendment saying that consent could be revoked for cause with the leave of the court, I would support it. I would not expect that to happen, but it could. I think that that would not encourage people to play games because they would know that once they gave their consent, they would have to show a good reason why that consent should not be acted upon.
  Lord Filkin: As I think has been understood, consent is a significant element in extradition. It is therefore important that we preserve it. However, it is also important that we ensure that proper safeguards are attached to its use. The noble Lord. Lord Wedderburn, asked me about my comments on parliamentary sovereignty. I have not changed my position—although it is not just my position. I think that I was merely stating the legal position. Parliament is sovereign. As that is so, Parliament legislates on what Parliament does. That legislation is effectively the law of this land.
  The noble Lord asked why we did not choose the option given us by the article to have a revocation of consent. There was a conscious decision not to do so, for exactly the reasons set out by the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson. For reasons that I shall shortly set out in more detail, we believe that that would open the door to abuse. Instead, we have put in place what we think are proper safeguards around the giving of consent. First, the judge must explain to the person the significance and impact of consent. As we discussed in previous debates, the judge not only explains that but seeks through interpreters to ensure that it has been understood. Secondly, as we also discussed in a previous debate, the person must have legal advice, or at least the offer of legal advice, available to him.
  I emphasise that everyone arrested in an extradition case has the same entitlement to independent legal advice as those arrested in domestic cases. The duty solicitor system scheme is designed to ensure that that is available before the first court appearance. In an extradition context that means that legal aid is available before the fugitive has an opportunity to consent to extradition, as well it should be. Nevertheless there is an additional safeguard that district judges are required to explain to the fugitive

  GC 377
  the effect of consenting to his extradition and the fact that consent, once given, cannot he revoked. Therefore, before the decision is taken, it must have been spelled out to them, "If you say yes to this, you cannot go back on it". That seems to us a right and necessary safeguard.
  We do not think that Amendment No. 56 is appropriate for exactly the reasons that noble Lords have indicated. Imagine the person who has consented to extradition being taken to Heathrow and then, just as he is about to go on the plane, announcing that he has changed his mind and withdrawn consent. He would be brought back again and the extradition hearing would start again. In those circumstances he could give consent again. And so it could go on. Although that may sound farfetched, if one is charged with a very serious criminal offence and fears for one's liberty, one will do one's utmost within the laws and procedures to fight every such mechanism. That is not being farfetched; that is a statement of common sense and fact. That is often what extradition resistance is about.
  For those reasons, I do not think that revocation is sensible—which is why we took that policy position. We have sought to try to ensure that people do not lightly, uninformedly or ill-advisedly give consent until they have been advised and are clear that it is not revocable.
  I heard the interesting challenge from the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, regarding regime change. One off-the-cuff answer is that if a country had regime change, it would, as we touched on earlier, be within the Government's power to remove it from Part 1. As that may not he a full answer I should like to reflect on it. As the noble Lord signalled. however, such a case is extremely unlikely. We hope that it will never happen with Part 1 territories. However, it would be an optimistic world if we thought that something could never happen. We should therefore—without implying that we necessarily think that there is a solution—consider the possibility. At this point, I simply suggest that the amendment might be withdrawn.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: Before we come to the end of this amendment, I should like to raise an issue that the Minister prayed in aid to explain the Government's stance. He referred to the fact that there would be access to the duty solicitor scheme for the provision of legal advice. He has just joined a newly created department. However, as I understand it, last week, the existing department—until this week, the Lord Chancellor's Department—issued guidance on what may happen to legal aid. One of the proposals was that the duty solicitor scheme will be severely cut back. I am not asking the Minister to answer my question now on the future of the duty solicitor scheme. However, would he be kind enough to ask other Ministers in his new department whether it will be possible to give the Grand Committee an undertaking that the Government think that, at least
  GC 378
  in extradition cases, the duty solicitor scheme should always be available? Otherwise there will be concern about the issue before we reach Report stage.
  Lord Filkin: I am pleased to agree to do so.
  Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I am grateful to everyone who has spoken to this amendment. Of course I tabled it in an absolute form because I wanted to raise rather different points, which I did raise. I noticed that the Minister—unless he wants to add something—did not suggest that he had had any discussions or consideration of reasons with the governments who notified the General Secretariat that they were going to allow revocation. It all seems to have happened without consideration of whatever those reasons were. As I understand it, there was an understanding that the provisions of domestic law as regards delay of proceedings could make whatever provision they liked.
  All the abuses that have been put forward are abuses against which it would be quite easy to legislate. We had the same problem as was raised under a previous clause—constant reiteration of consent, or constant reiteration of release after provisional arrest. Of course we can legislate to give the judge guidance on dealing with that. We could even give the judge a discretion in cases where consent appears to be a manifest abuse. I agree that my amendment did not suggest that. However, it was tabled to see whether anyone would realise that.
  The idea that if there is a regime change the Government will necessarily revoke the designated territory status under Clause 1 is somewhat fanciful. I was not going to put forward regime change, but I am grateful to the noble Lord for doing so as it is another case. I was going to put forward a case where consent to extradition had been given in the belief that there was no death penalty. That was correct at the time of designation, but subsequent to designation and to consent a death penalty had been introduced in the issuing territory.
  The Government are in a bit of trouble on this. It seems to me that their only possible answer is that designation will be revoked. Quite frankly, I do not think that that is good enough. No one should be at risk of a death penalty introduced subsequent to designation and to their consent and forced to rely merely upon the speedy action of the executive—presumably within the 10 days—to revoke the designation order. The Government really must look at that again.
  There is another, more homely example. I noticed that no noble Lord dealt with my case of consent obtained by the advice of a mystic. A judge can not necessarily spot that. I appreciate that judges are very wise. However, I do not subscribe to the proposition, as I understood the noble Viscount to say, that the English judiciary can easily solve all our problems. Even judges do not see the whole part of the game.
  If we had someone whose religious persuasion told him that he must submit to Caesar in an absolute form and he gave consent on the basis of that faith, and after

  GC 379
  consent he saw Caesar in a different light and was converted to a different position, why should he not be allowed under at least some conditions to revoke or modify that consent? The judge can explain what he likes, and his lawyer can explain what he likes, but that is nothing whatever to do with his religious beliefs, which have changed. Yet noble Lords will stop him from following his belief. I do not understand that. I do not believe that it is impossible to modify the proposition in Clause 8(3)(c) regarding revocability with our perfectly sensible provision.
  Lord Mayhew of Twysden: On this point about changing one's religion and seeing Caesar in a different light, I wonder whether the noble Lord does not see the distinction between a case where the person does not give his mind to what is relied upon as his consent and a case where he gave his mind to it but changed it subsequently? Surely they are quite separate.
  5.45 p.m.
  Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I appreciate what the noble and learned Lord says. I was not putting forward the case where a man had merely changed his mind but where he had changed his fundamental premises, which everyone is entitled to do.
  I know that we have had trouble lately with regulations relating to non-religious people not being covered against discrimination. Other Members of the Grand Committee may not have been there—it is the only occasion on which I have spoken at the wrong time in your Lordships' House—but, if they read Hansard, they will see that we have had trouble in that regard.
  A person may not have a religious belief—he may have an atheist belief—but the fundamental premises of what he believes may have totally changed. But I have said enough on this subject. When the Minister looks again at this matter—as I hope he will—I urge him to consider the conditions under which revocability would be allowed.
  I move the amendment in this form because the Government are in trouble on this issue. The Minister did not refer to the problem but if, for example, Parliament legislates on this, can he go back to our European partners and say "We want to give a late notice"? Or is European law on this matter so granite faced that he cannot change his position because of the framework decision? If he is able to go back, is he prepared to consider doing so?
  It is all very well for the Minister to say that he still adheres to the view that Parliament is sovereign, but if he cannot go back and change our position under the framework decision—the noble Lord shakes his head—which is as binding as a directive in European law, the judge will have to take account of the framework decision whatever Parliament may enact. I am not sure what the judge will do in such circumstances. If the Minister could assure me that he would go back if Parliament legislated for a small area of consent to be revocable, that would be very satisfactory.
  GC 380
  If the Minister wishes to add to what he has said before I withdraw the amendment I shall happily give way to him.
  Lord Filkin: I am no international lawyer but my understanding is that framework agreements are international treaty agreements between member states; they do not apply to domestic law until such time as their provisions have been enacted in Parliament. Therefore the law of the land is the law as passed by Parliament. I have set out the Government's view. We do not want to go back because revocation is not desirable. Having said that, I have indicated to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that I will reflect on the point he made.
  Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I am grateful to my noble friend. It would obviously be wrong of me to read the relevant parts of the preamble. but this is a European Council Framework Decision of 13th June 2002 issued by the Council of the European Union under Articles 31 and 34. Perhaps the Minister will have another look at that document.
  The Minister has still not said whether he would be prepared to go back and ask if Parliament decided that he should. If Parliament instructed him to go back and ask to give a late notice to the General Secretariat, he still has not told us whether he would do so. That raises profound constitutional issues. However. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 57:
  Page 6, line 6, leave out "are exceptional circumstances" and insert "is good reason"
  The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 57, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 59. The amendments are proposed by Liberty.
  A judge who is required to proceed under Clause 8(1) of the Extradition Bill must fix a date on which the extradition hearing is to begin. Under subsection (4) that date must be not later than 21 days from the date of arrest. Subsection (5) states:
  "If before the date fixed under subsection (1)…a party to the proceedings applies to the judge for a later date to be fixed and the judge believes there are exceptional circumstances, he"—
  that is the judge—
  "may fix a later date; and this subsection may apply more than once".
  That allows the date fixed for the hearing to be postponed only in "exceptional circumstances". But the right of a defendant—the person concerned is effectively a defendant—to time and facilities for the preparation of his defence is absolutely essential. It is a matter of common knowledge that there are frequently delays in getting authority for the grant of legal aid even where a hearing is imminent. Where the human rights of a defendant would not he observed in a requesting country—and therefore the extradition would be excluded by Clause 21 of the Bill—it may well take time to gather and present the necessary evidence.

  GC 381
  These circumstances cannot be regarded as "exceptional". Indeed, delay for the purposes of obtaining legal aid is far from exceptional; it is all too common. But it does provide a very good reason for the extension of time and it is obviously desirable that a defendant who needs more time should not have to show "exceptional circumstances" but merely "good reasons".
  I accept that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander and that if a defendant can get a postponement for good reason even though the circumstances are not exceptional, the same rule should apply to the Crown Prosecution Service. The amendment provides that either side can apply for an extension of time where there is good reason.
  Amendment No. 59, which is of somewhat less importance, would require the subject of the warrant to be a party to any application by the Crown Prosecution Service for the postponement of the hearing. It is plain that he should be a party to any application which might increase the length of his detention and—even if he is released on bail—the amount of time that an extradition order is hanging over his head.
  Although the amendment is not drafted in this way, I would have no objection to all applications under subsection (5) being made inter-party—that is, in the presence of both parties—so that if the detained person applies for an extension of time the Crown Prosecution Service should have a right to be present at that application. I beg to move.
  Viscount Bledisloe: The amendment must be right. I suspect that subsection (5) was drafted with a view to the person asking for delay being the Crown Prosecution Service, the prosecutor. It is perfectly reasonable that, before he sets extradition in motion, he should have his tackle in action and not have to keep asking for delays.
  As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. said, it will happen very frequently that the lawyer instructed by an accused—if that is the right word—will say, "I have not had time to take full instructions" or, "My partner is ill and I am not ready". This happens all the time. To say that a lawyer saying "I need more time" is an exceptional circumstance is a remarkable proposition. I see that I have the support of most Members of the Committee on that.
  It cannot be right to say that when the date may have been fixed at a hearing where the defendant was unrepresented—there is no reason why he should have been represented when the date was fixed—and may have thought that it was a very simple procedure. But when his lawyer comes along there may be difficulties. His lawyer may need to consult people; he may need to find out about foreign law; he may need to get translators; we know he will need to get an interpreter in many circumstances. So the lawyer will say, "I am sorry, I am not ready" and the judge may say, "Well,
  GC 382
  that is not exceptional. It is absolutely commonplace. I am afraid you cannot have your adjournment". That plainly would be wrong.
  Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: I support Amendment No. 57. I am sure that those advising the Minister will accept that the term "exceptional circumstances" has been narrowly construed by the Court of Appeal in many aspects of the criminal law. As the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, said, it would not cover a person who said "For good reasons I am not ready to go on". The words "good reasons" rather than "exceptional circumstances" would meet the Government's requirements and would be fairer to the person who is to be extradited. It would be a sensible amendment.
  The clause should perhaps go rather wider and, rather than stating that a judge should believe that there are exceptional circumstances, it should state that the judge is satisfied that there are good reasons.
  Lord Mayhew of Twysden: Before the Minister replies, perhaps it would be worth considering a slightly different form of wording. One has to be loyal to the Government's policy—or, to put it another way, I share the Government's wish to speed up the process and to cut out factious delays and factious opportunities to occasion delays—but, at the same time, that cannot be at the expense of justice.
  I agree with what has been said about the formulation of "exceptional circumstances", but a judge will require guidance as to what the language employed in substitution for that phrase really means. He will also need guidance on the circumstances in which it is to be used. I am not sure whether the phrase "for good reason" would give him enough guidance.
  On reflection, perhaps it would better to use the phrase "where the overall interests of justice require". The phrase "for good reason" seems a little too bland to give a judge the necessary guidance.
  Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: We share the Government's wish to ensure that delays are reduced. We gave the Government the benefit of the doubt on the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, but on this occasion we believe that the envelope has been pushed too far by the phrase "exceptional circumstances" and that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has the right construction.
  This has come about in part because of the European arrest warrant, under which things can happen very quickly. We need to ensure that there is a proper opportunity for consultation and preparation and that the process does not go through unduly quickly and in a way that does not give an individual the opportunity to ensure that his case is properly prepared.
  We share the views that have been expressed in Grand Committee. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, on changing subsection (1) to subsection (5). It did not make any sense and I was going to ask him about it.
  Lord Filkin: It is good that all noble Lords who have spoken support what we are fundamentally seeking to

  GC 383
  do—that is, to quite sensibly and necessarily speed up the extradition process while, at the same time, trying to avoid miscarriages of justice in so doing. As set out in the Bill, we believe that "exceptional" is the best way of achieving that because it will ensure that the substantive hearing will take place relatively speedily unless there are "exceptional reasons" for not doing so.
  At this first stage, all we will be doing is fixing a date for the initial hearing. At the substantive hearing it will be open to the lawyer acting for the person sought for extradition to make exactly the points advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and others—in other words, he can apply for an adjournment because he is not ready and does not have all the evidence he requires—and the judge at that substantive hearing will have ample discretion to consider them.
  Mindful of what has been said, I should like to reflect further on this matter—not because we do not believe that we are right in our intent but if this was to give rise to a number of substantive hearings and increase the likelihood of adjournments as a consequence, that would not achieve what most of the Members of the Committee seek—that is, for substantive hearings to go ahead rather than be adjourned. It might be—I go no further than that— that too severe a test at the initial stage would foreclose some sensible options to avoid an adjournment later.
  I do not want to raise hopes excessively but we shall reflect on these points and respond to them on Report.
  6 p.m.
  Lord Goodhart: I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in support of the amendment. I am also grateful to the Minister for saying that he will consider the matter further.
  The amendment is plainly right. As the Minister suggested, it is not desirable to go to the first day of the substantive hearing and at that stage ask for an adjournment for the necessary period of time. Subsection (5) suggests that there are some circumstances under which it might be desirable to apply for an adjournment before the substantive hearing begins. So there is a clear argument for saying that where it is apparent that more time will be needed it should be possible to make the application before the beginning of the substantive hearing.
  I await with interest the Government's response but, unless it is favourable, I intend to bring back the amendment on Report, perhaps in the form suggested by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts moved Amendment No. 58:
  Page 6, line 6, leave out "and this subsection may apply more than once"
  The noble Lord said: The amendment seeks to delete the proviso in subsection (5) that delays may be applied for more than once. Amendment No. 186
  GC 384
  relates to a Part 2 arrest warrant and, most significantly given the provision we are seeking to explore, Amendment No. 212 relates to Clause 98—"Time limit for order for extradition or discharge"—where the Secretary of State comes into play.
  We have brought forward the amendments on the recommendation of the Scottish Law Society. It has been assiduous as ever in spotting potential loopholes and has drawn particular points to our attention.
  Amendment No. 58 seeks to remove the provision in Clause 8 which allows the date of an extradition hearing to be rescheduled on a continuing basis. We share the Scottish Law Society's concerns that the current drafting of the provision could lead to the indefinite detention of those awaiting an extradition hearing. It is possible that the date could be deferred using the excuse of "exceptional circumstances", the "interests of justice", or whatever, again and again.
  Throughout our discussions on the Bill we have been repeatedly told by the Minister that one of the main aims of the legislation is to speedup the system, which is fraught with delays and has endless numbers of trials postponed, deferred and avoided. We welcome a Bill which will make the extradition process more efficient by removing unnecessary and potential procrastination. That is why we wish to discuss this issue today. On that basis, we have brought forward amendments which seek to delete the provision to allow more than one continuation of a hearing.
  Amendment No. 212 relates to the position of the Secretary of State. At present, one of the great complaints about the extradition process concerns delays. As we discussed at Second Reading and elsewhere, although delays in extradition appear to be the fault of lawyers and the judicial process and procedure, in many cases they come about because the Secretary of State cannot make up his mind and continuously puts off decisions.
  At Second Reading I referred to the case raised by Mr John Maples, the Member for Stratford-on-Avon, in the Second Reading debate in another place. He pointed out how a number of people wanted for terrorist offences in the United States and France had exhausted their legal procedures by December 2001 and were still awaiting the Secretary of State's decision in December 2002. I have given the details of those cases and I shall not weary the Grand Committee with them again. When we discussed the issue four months later on 1st May—16 months after the legal proceedings had been exhausted—I asked the Minister whether or not those people had been deported and their cases finally concluded. Perhaps the Minister now knows about that and will tell us when he replies.
  This probing amendment seeks to deal with procrastination, particularly on the part of the Secretary of State. Clearly that has recently held up a huge number of cases. It is all very well to pass the blame across to the lawyers but, in many cases, it has not been the fault of the lawyers or the courts but of an inability, unwillingness or a lack of will and readiness to make a final decision.

  GC 385
  When I have asked the Minister about this in the past he has said "We are acting in a judicial capacity". But surely every judicial capacity must have been exhausted in a period of 16 months. It cannot take as long as that for a Secretary of State to reach a conclusion in conformity with his judicial capacity.
  These are probing amendments which are of particular significance to the later parts of the Bill. We raise them now because the issue arises in regard to Clause 8 and again in Part 2. I beg to move.
  Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I am not sure about this issue. If the Government were to adopt my suggestion made on the previous amendment that the time limit may be extended where the interests of justice required, it would be a little difficult to justify saying that the interests of justice should be heeded on only one occasion and not more.
  If that formulation were to be adopted, would it not meet the purpose of the current amendment which my noble friend has explained? The interests of justice are the overall interests of justice and if it would be unjust in all the circumstances to protract the detention of the applicant, that would permit the judge on those grounds to refuse a further application.
  Lord Goodhart: The name of my noble friend Lord Mar and Kellie is attached to these amendments. This is because the amendments were more or less approved en bloc, having been brought forward by the Law Society of Scotland. On further consideration—and on the same grounds as those suggested by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew—I am no longer certain that Amendments Nos. 58 and 186 are appropriate.
  I remain strongly in support of Amendment No. 212, which seeks to place a firm limit of two months on the time available to the Secretary of State to make his decision as to whether or not a category 2 extradition is to proceed. Two months is a perfectly adequate period of time within which the Secretary of State can make a decision, and it would be difficult to justify an extension of that time.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: There is a degree of unanimity within the Grand Committee that our present extradition system, with its endless and multiple opportunities for delays, is not satisfactory. One of the great virtues of the new arrangements the Bill will put in place is a speedier and more streamlined process. The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, agreed that that was right.
  It means that we shall have to set and adhere to timetables. As part of that, at the initial hearing which takes place very shortly after arrest, the district judge must set a date on which the main extradition hearing should begin. This should ensure that extradition proceedings do not drag on indefinitely.
  However, we recognise that there may be circumstances when it would be unjust and unfair for a hearing to proceed on the due date. For example, the fugitive or his lawyer may fall ill, or another party in a Part 2 case may have encountered real and unforeseen
  GC 386
  difficulties in gathering the necessary evidence. Accordingly the Bill allows the district judge to postpone the hearing where he believes there are "exceptional circumstances", and he can do so on application from either side.
  We have just agreed to consider whether there is a case for applying a slightly less stringent test. I recognise that such circumstances can arise and that they can continue to apply or happen on more than one occasion. Accordingly, we think it right that the judge should be able to postpone the hearing date as many times as he needs to rather than be able to do so only once, which would be the effect of the amendment.
  Let me give the example of where the district judge has set a date for an extradition hearing and a few days before the appointed date the fugitive falls quite seriously ill. In those circumstances, it would be in the interests of justice and appropriate to postpone the extradition hearing. The medical prognosis might be that the fugitive is likely to have recovered sufficiently to attend and participate in a hearing set for about three weeks hence. Accordingly, the judge might set a new date for the initial hearing of four weeks hence.
  As we know, doctors are not always infallible. It might be that when the revised hearing date comes round, the fugitive, although on the road to recovery, is still not well enough to attend the hearing. In those circumstances a further postponement would clearly be right. Removing the possibility of a second postponement could result in injustice to the fugitive. I am sure that that is not what Members of the Committee want to see.
  I appreciate that noble Lords may be concerned that the requesting state might seek to use this facility to secure a series of postponements to the detriment of the fugitive. The first point to be made is that, under the reasons I have given, we have to allow the fugitive to secure more than one postponement, but we must be even-handed and thus not deny the same facility to the requesting state, as our legal system has always been based on treating both sides in the case equally and fairly.
  Nevertheless, I understand the concerns. That is precisely why we have left the district judge to decide whether there are good grounds for the postponement. The mere fact that the requesting state seeks a postponement does not mean that it will automatically get it. If, in the judge's view, good reasons have not been advanced for the postponement, he will not allow it. If the requesting state has failed to get its act together, that is its own bad luck. That was also the reason why we set the bar at a higher level in terms of the test that the judge should apply. It is something that we shall have to take into consideration when we further reflect on these issues. I do not believe that a requesting state would seek to abuse this facility, but if it did so, I am sure that the judge would have little truck with it. I hope that noble Lords appreciate the drawbacks attendant on their amendments and that they will be withdrawn.

  GC 387
  In response to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, on the Secretary of State giving reasons for possibly postponing his decision, it may be because he would want to consider any late representations made to him by the fugitive. However, the agreement of the High Court is required before the Secretary of State can postpone his decision. So there is a check in place.
  The noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, returned to an issue that he has quite properly raised previously. I am sure he would accept that I am not in a position to discuss individual cases. It would not be in the interests of justice for me to discuss such cases within the confines of a Committee. However, if the noble Lord wants to take advice on this particular issue outside the Committee, then obviously he is free to do so.
  6.15 p.m.
  Lord Goodhart: I should like to make two points before the noble Lord, Lord Hodgson, withdraws his amendment. First, I was interested to note that the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, referred to the illness of the person against whom the warrant has been issued as one of the possible grounds for deferring the date of the start of the hearing. But if there is anything that is not an exceptional circumstance, I should have thought that it would be the illness of the defendant. I think that illustrates the strength of the argument on the previous amendment.
  I want to ask about Amendment No. 212. While I understand the point that it might be the defendant actually asking the Secretary of State to give further time for the consideration of new information, of course it is not necessarily that way around. There is no qualification here about the grounds on which the Secretary of State can ask the High Court to extend the time; as set out in Clause 98(10), which states:
  "If before the required period ends the Secretary of State applies to the High Court for it to be extended, the High Court may make an order accordingly".
  Ought not there to be at least a requirement that an extension can be granted only if the interests of justice require it?
  Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has summed up what I wanted to say. It is clear that our first two amendments, Amendments Nos. 58 and 186, need to be revisited in the light of the Government's reaction to the "overall interests of justice" or whatever phrase is used when they come to look again at the clause. However, on Amendment No. 212, relating to Clause 98, we take a rather more robust view, one made more robust as a result of what the Minister said about the three gentlemen alleged to have been involved in the African embassy bombings in August 1998, and who are still here four years later.
  I do not ask the Minister to comment on the case, but only on whether those people are still in this country. Have they gone or not? I do not seek the Minister's view whether this is right or wrong, whether they were guilty or not guilty; I ask only whether the people concerned are still here. But when the Minister
  GC 388
  responds by saying, "Oh, I cannot possibly tell you that in the interests of justice", it makes me wonder whether, when we reach Clause 98—"Time limit for order for extradition or discharge"—given the open-ended nature of the thing so ably described by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that response will be used all the time.
  Far from meeting the wish of the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, to speed things up, should someone enter this end of the legal pinball machine, that ball will be bouncing back and forth for a very long time. In all honesty, I cannot see why, four years after the events and 16 months after the High Court finally extinguished their last legal line of approach in this country, the Minister cannot say what has happened to those three people. Does the Minister wish to respond?
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: I do not have the information and I am not in a position to enter into discussions about that particular case. However, I appreciate and take note of the point made by the noble Lord.
  Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: For the moment I shall withdraw the amendment, but in particular with regard to Amendment No. 212, we shall want to reflect carefully on the matter. This seems to be a lacuna—a black hole—that may in fact recreate the circumstances which most of this legislation is seeking to avoid. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 59 not moved.]
  Clause 8 agreed to.
  Clause 9 [Judge's powers at extradition hearing]:
  [Amendments Nos. 60, 60A and 61 not moved.]
  Clause 9 agreed to.
  Clause 10 [Initial stage of extradition hearing]:
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns: moved Amendment No. 62:
  Page 6, line 36, after "decide" insert "on the evidence presented to him"
  The noble Baroness said: I beg to move Amendment No. 62. We turn now to the matter of the initial stage of the extradition hearing. This amendment focuses on a crucial part of the extradition process because Clause 10(2) states that:
  "The judge must decide whether the offence specified in the Part 1 warrant is an extradition offence".
  The extradition offences are subsequently set out in Clauses 63 and 64.
  Our difficulty with subsection (2) reflects on the arguments we had on Second Reading, which I shall not repeat in detail, covering the lack of the need to establish a prima facie case. The amendment is designed to probe exactly how the judge is to make this decision. On what evidence will he base that decision? I presume that it can be based only on the evidence on the face of the warrant, although we have already been

  GC 389
  told when we debated Amendments Nos. 18 and 22 that the information to be included on the warrant is not to be prima facie evidence.
  In the past the Government have said that prima facie evidence will not be required in these circumstances because while working under previous treaties negotiated when a Conservative government was in power, those rights to prima facie evidence were surrendered. We accept that as a matter of fact, but this Bill is to introduce a system whereby the existing safeguards which complemented that lack of prima facie evidence are to go. We seek to probe the Government on what basis the judge is supposed to deduce whether the offence on the warrant is indeed an extradition offence.
  We know that later we shall reach the framework list of 32 generic offences. However, I do not see how, on the sparse information set out in the arrest warrant, the judge is meant to decide whether the offence is one that falls within the list of 32, bearing in mind that the offences listed are generic rather than specific.
  We seek an explanation from the Government how on earth they expect the judge to reach a proper decision in these circumstances. I beg to move.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: I must say that this amendment seems to be utterly misconceived because the judge always looks at the evidence presented to him. He has no other basis on which to consider the case. So in my view, despite what has been said by the noble Baroness, this amendment is misconceived.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: We have reached an important stage in the Bill and obviously it is right that we take careful note of what is being said on this issue before we enter into the later debates.
  At the initial hearing, the district judge is obliged to set a date for the main extradition hearing. At the main hearing, the judge is required to consider a number of issues when determining whether extradition should take place. The first issue is whether the offence specified in the warrant is an extradition offence under Part 1 of the Bill. If the judge is satisfied that the offence is an extradition offence, then he must proceed to consider whether there are any statutory bars to extradition. If the judge decides that the offence is not an extradition offence, then he must order the person's discharge, which would be the end of the matter.
  The warrant must contain certain information for it to he valid. This includes particulars of the offence which the person is alleged to have committed or the offence of which he has been convicted. So the judge will be well placed to take a view on whether it falls within the definition of an extradition offence or a description of the offence contained in Clauses 63 and 64. But it will be open to either side—the fugitive and the requesting state—to make a case to the judge in order to try to persuade him to reach a particular conclusion. No doubt the other party will seek to refute those arguments and it will be for the judge to weigh up the competing evidence that he has heard, and then come to a conclusion.
  GC 390
  My initial reaction is that I fail to see the need for Amendment No. 62 which seeks to add the stipulation that the judge must decide on the "evidence presented to him". This seems superfluous since, as I have explained, that is exactly what will happen. In this country we do not have an investigating magistrate system, so the judge can only ever decide matters on the basis of the evidence placed before him. The judge is already bound to decide the issue of whether the conduct constitutes an extradition offence on the information before him, including any evidence that either party may care to submit.
  While the amendment is certainly well-intentioned, I believe that it is somewhat superfluous to what we are seeking to achieve here. I hope that the noble Baroness will not take offence at that remark, but will see the sense of the position we have adopted and withdraw her amendment.
  Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: I wish to put a question to the Minister. Reverting to an earlier discussion. where it states in Clause 10(2) that,
  "the judge must decide whether the offence … is an extradition offence",
  is he deciding it on the balance of probabilities or because he is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt?
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: I think that the judge has to decide beyond reasonable doubt.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to the Minister and for the interventions of my noble friend Lord Carlisle of Bucklow and the noble Lord. Lord Clinton-Davis, who considered that my amendment was misconceived. I do not take offence, although the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, thought that I might do so. Amendments can never be misconceived if they produce the answers they seek. In this case, the amendment has done that.
  The Minister said that the judge has to be satisfied that it is a extradition offence. I am particularly grateful for his answer to my noble friend, Lord Carlisle, when he said that the evidential burden is to be that of the criminal law. Of course we know full well that extradition proceedings live in a somewhat twilight world betwixt civil and criminal law, as I learnt when I observed the very careful handling of an extradition case only a week or so ago. I am very aware of the care taken by the judiciary when looking at evidence, whether as it is currently practised or as it will be when we have Part 1 as well as Part 2-type proceedings.
  In his response, the Minister said that the judge would weigh up the evidence that he had heard. I have a further question for the Minister: given the evidence being presented to the judge, if the warrant states that the offence is one of xenophobia and very little other information is given, what if it is challenged and the person asks how that xenophobic offence is described? Will the judge be allowed to hear evidence from witnesses that the person about to be extradited wishes to call?
  6.30 p.m.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: The answer to the question put by the noble Baroness is yes, evidence could be taken from witnesses, but of course the proceeding would not then move on to consideration of whether the offence was actually committed because that is a matter for the court in the country where it is proposed that the fugitive should be extradited. The merits cannot be judged, only whether it is a parallel or similar offence.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I understand the Minister to be saying that it is the nature of the offence that could be put to proof by the calling of witnesses. I am grateful to him for indicating that the initial hearing is perhaps going to be somewhat wider than was originally anticipated and I shall want to consider carefully what he has said to see whether it may be necessary to return to this at Report or whether it will suffice to ask questions between now and that stage and thus settle the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 63 not moved.]
  Clause 10 agreed to.
  Clause 11 [Bars to extradition]:
  Viscount Bledisloe Viscount Bledisloe moved Amendment No. 64:
  Page 7, line 9, at end insert—
  "( ) patent innocence:"
  The noble Viscount said: Amendment No. 64 is purely a formal paving amendment to Amendment No. 75, so I shall speak to the latter amendment. For the first time in our deliberations we have come, so to speak, to consider the substance of what one can be extradited for rather than the procedure.
  Under Clause 7(2), one is entitled to ask: "Am I or am I not the person named in the warrant?", which we have already looked at. But it appears that one is not allowed to say to the judge: "I can demonstrate conclusively that I could not have committed the offence with which I have been charged".
  The warrant has with it certain particulars. Let us say that it alleges a rape, one committed at three o'clock in the afternoon of a specified date by a person who threw himself upon a lady in some deserted area in Germany. He cast her to the ground and raped her. Let us also say—purely hypothetically, of course—that that warrant has been issued against the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg. However, some 400 people can be made available to testify that on that date and at that time, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, was seated upon the Woolsack and therefore could not possibly be the person who committed the offence. Surely the noble and learned Lord should be entitled to demonstrate those circumstances to the court and to say: "Given the circumstances, I shall not be extradited".
  In an extremely helpful and courteous letter written to me by the Minister after the debate on Second Reading—for the first time I have an opportunity to express my considerable gratitude to him for that—he
  GC 392
  stated that that would be all right because there is only one noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, but would not be all right if he is called Mr Andrew Smith, because there are a great many of them. However, with respect, that is not right.
  The warrant would be addressed to a specific Mr Andrew Smith of, say, 4B Railway Cuttings, Somewhere-or-Other. Either he would have admitted or it would have been established that he is Mr Andrew Smith of 4B Railway Cuttings. None the less, he can demonstrate that at the time of the offence the person standing in the dock—himself—was in fact playing in a football match for Manchester United and being watched by 60,000 people, all of whom are prepared to come to court to say that he was there and not in Germany.
  Let us take an alternative example. The information states that the person sprang from a tree, threw himself on a lady and raped her. Suppose that the fugitive can demonstrate that he is, and has been for the past 10 years, paralysed and in a wheelchair? In such circumstances, where it can be demonstrated conclusively that it was not the accused—and could not have been the accused—who committed the offence, surely that person should not be extradited.
  Of course I do not suggest that we should return to the balance of probabilities—or even to a trial—but what should happen where the accused can demonstrate that he did not commit the offence? I would be perfectly willing to add to that—if the Minister will wear it—the stipulation that the accused can demonstrate conclusively or can satisfy the judge beyond doubt that he did not commit the offence.
  Surely, however, in the fairly rare circumstances of the kind that I have adumbrated, the accused should be entitled to put an end to the proceedings at that stage rather than be hauled off to the extraditing country and, when his trial comes up, be required to adduce such evidence there.
  Subsection (b) of my proposed new clause deals with a person being hauled back because he has already been convicted of an offence. As a corollary to my first proposition, so to speak, if it can be demonstrated conclusively that the person is not the person named in the conviction, although he is the person named on the warrant, that should suffice.
  Let us suppose that the accused was tried for five days before the court and then fled absented himself—and was convicted in his absence. That person is a Mr Andrew Smith of 4B Railway Cuttings. However, Mr Smith is one of those tiresome people who comes from a family in which all the eldest sons are named Andrew Smith. Further, it is beyond doubt that the Mr Andrew Smith of 4B Railway Cuttings who was convicted of this offence was the father. He has absented himself by fleeing to South America and therefore the only Mr Andrew Smith of 4B Railway Cuttings is the son, who plainly is not the person convicted. Again, surely, the proceedings should be dismissed at that stage.

  GC 393
  Obviously, however, that is a more unlikely circumstance and it is subsection (a) that principally concerns me. However, I inserted subsection (b) for the sake of completeness and regularity. I beg to move.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: The noble Viscount has portrayed for the Committee a very compelling argument. I wish that he had not referred to my noble and learned friend Lord Irvine of Lairg because I got entirely the wrong idea.
  Viscount Bledisloe: I did so only because I referred to the noble and learned Lord at Second Reading.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: That is not a good excuse. The noble Viscount ought not to have referred to him at all. Nevertheless, the noble Viscount has put forward a compelling argument in relation to both subsections (a) and (b) of his proposed new clause. If the person concerned demonstrably did not commit the offence he should be given the opportunity to say so. If the warrant is fundamentally incorrect, then that too should be adduced in evidence.
  However, as the clause is presently drafted, I do not think that either situation obtains. Of course I may be wrong. No doubt my noble friend will not hesitate to point out that the premise upon which both submissions are made is entirely wrong. although I do not think so.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I too believe that the noble Viscount has made a compelling case. I hope that the Minister will he able to point to a provision in the Bill which protects people and gives them the right to make their case.
  I have been given an example of the kind of case that could arise far more commonly than the serious matters referred to by the noble Viscount. I refer to the case of someone who travels abroad on holiday and, while on holiday, finds that his credit card details have been stolen. The person returns to this country but then discovers that his credit card is being used fraudulently abroad, something which happens in hundreds of thousands of cases every year.
  An occasion could therefore arise where a warrant for extradition is issued in a Part 1 country in respect of a fraud committed on a credit card, and the person accused of that fraud would indeed be the person named on the credit card. However, it would be very improper for such a person to be put through the full procedures of Part 1 over here. Surely they should be given the opportunity at a very early stage to make the point that, although they are indeed the person named on the warrant and the person whose credit card has been used fraudulently, they could not possibly have been in that country at the time when the card was fraudulently used.
  I hope that the Minister will be able to point to a cast-iron guarantee in the Bill that a person caught in these circumstances or in the circumstances referred to by the noble Viscount would be given the opportunity to say: "It wasn't me; it could not have been me; you have to stop this procedure now".
  6.45 p.m.
  Lord Filkin: I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, for his kind remarks about my letter. I am sad that it clearly completely failed to do the job, in that it did not persuade him not to raise those issues again. I shall not pursue the calumny against my noble and learned friend Lord Irvine, for reasons that the Committee will understand.
  The amendments have two limbs: one for accusation cases and one for conviction cases. I should like to deal with the latter, and the second limb of the amendment, first. That provides that a person's extradition should be barred if he can demonstrate that he is not the person convicted of the offence.
  That is already covered by the Bill. Clause 7 provides that the first thing that the judge must do when the person is brought before him at the initial hearing is to determine whether the person is the one in respect of whom the warrant was issued. In conviction cases, the issue before the court is whether the person in court is the person in respect of whom the warrant was issued. The Bill already caters for that. If the judge concludes at the initial hearing that the person before him is not the right person, he must be discharged, as we have discussed.
  Let me now turn to the first part of the amendment, which deals with accusation cases. Here, the noble Viscount's amendment provides that a person is entitled to be discharged if he can demonstrate that he is patently innocent of the crime of which he stands accused.
  How is he to demonstrate that? In many cases, presumably, by calling witnesses to make the case for his innocence and perhaps by trying to establish an alibi. However, the interests of justice require that the other party to the case—the requesting state—must be allowed to try to refute the fugitive's evidence and to produce its own evidence. So, for example, if the fugitive claims that he has an alibi, the requesting state may want to produce an eye-witness or closed-circuit television evidence that places the fugitive at the scene of the crime. The judge would be then required to adjudicate between the conflicting evidence.
  The noble Viscount may believe that restricting the bar to those who are patently innocent might reduce the volume of such cases. However, I fear that that is not the case. All the evidence from extradition cases shows that if a bar to extradition exists, fugitives will seek to use it—for reasons that we have exposed during earlier discussion. We therefore predict that in almost every extradition case, the fugitive would seek to claim that his extradition was barred by reason of his patent innocence.
  One might say: what is wrong with that? At the least, if such a provision were enacted, the fugitive would be able to secure a delay—potentially a substantial one—to the proceedings, if the requesting state had to bring in other witnesses before the district judge to refute the claim by the person whose extradition was sought that he was not the person.

  GC 395
  On Second Reading, the noble Viscount said that he was not seeking to re-introduce the prima facie evidential test. But that is precisely what the amendment proposes. Indeed, it goes beyond that. It would ensure that virtually every extradition hearing became a mini-trial with evidence and counter-evidence. There are therefore fundamental practical reasons why, although the amendment appears seductive, it would in practice drive a coach and horses through what most Members of the Committee—I include the noble Viscount in this—seek to achieve.
  The crumb of comfort that I can offer is that, if there were really to be such cast-iron evidence, the fugitive or his lawyer could submit it to the prosecuting authorities in the requesting state. If it were persuaded by it, it could withdraw its request. That is within its power.
  If we weaken the Bill as proposed, for reasons that are clear, that would have an enormous wrecking effect on what we seek to achieve. The only other comfort that I can offer is that there are many cases in which people who claim that they are innocent are able to claim that they were not the person. There is already an opportunity under the Bill for them to advance that case; so that point is covered.
  On the question of guilt or innocence, it is a cardinal principle of extradition that that question must be a matter for the court of trial. We should not seek to resolve that question at the extradition hearing. On the point about Andrew Smith being one of many in the house, the Bill already allows for that. If the Andrew Smith seized said, "It was not me, but my brother", the judge has discretion to decide the matter.
  On the absolutely accurate point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, an extremely large number of credit cards is stolen or used fradulently. I recollect that it happened to me when we last went to France last summer. That is all too easy, given our system. But in that case, it was not me, as the owner of the credit card, who would have been charged with fraud; effectively, the fraud was committed against me.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. I must not have completed the picture. The problem is that in some circumstances, the fraud perpetrated is that the credit card is used beyond the limit—for example, if it is used several times during the day. As the Minister will be aware, at present there is not the same protection in this country as there is in the rest of Europe, so someone—not the Minister, I am sure—could, although he had not used the card, be accused of and summonsed for fraud.
  Lord Filkin: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her clarification, but in the circumstances that she describes, if my credit card had been stolen and used on several occasions that exceeded the frequency or total credit limit, that would be for transactions not made by me or with my consent and would therefore be a fraud against me. If I checked my credit card details regularly, I would identify those transactions
  GC 396
  and draw them to the attention of my bank to say, "My credit card has been used fraudulently". So in those circumstances, I would initiate the action.
  If I had not noticed and my bank raised it with me, I would say, "Hang on, I see that my card has been used four times for sums of £3,000 a time. I was not in that town". My experience—and that of most people, I think—is that credit card companies are aware of the level of fraud in such circumstances and pursue it vigorously. They usually put a stop on the account while they pursue it.
  So I respect the issue raised by the noble Baroness of the frequency of such events, but they do not seem to me likely to be the stuff of Part 1 extradition warrants.
  Viscount Bledisloe: I am grateful both to those Members of the Committee who spoke in favour of the amendment and the Minister for his careful answer. First, on paragraph (b), with which he dealt first, with respect, his answer does not deal with the point.
  Let us say that the warrant is addressed to Mr Andrew Smith of 4 Railway Cuttings. The person in the dock is asked: "Are you Mr Andrew Smith of 4 Railway Cuttings?" He says, "Yes". He is then asked: "Are you the only Mr Andrew Smith of 4 Railway Cuttings? Then you are the person named in the warrant". But the person in the dock—this happened in a major trial that was all over the German newspapers with photographs of the accused being taken to court every day—said, "But that was my father. He used to be Mr Andrew Smith of 4 Railway Cuttings, but he fled to Panama in the middle of the trial. He has been there ever since and it is he who was convicted, not me". So he was the person named in the warrant but not the person who had been convicted.
  Turning to paragraph (a), which is. as I said, probably more important, the Minister recognised that in unusual cases such as I suggested, it was unfair on people that they were being taken back to be tried. but said that that unfairness paled into insignificance compared to the inconvenience of the risk that numerous fugitives would use that defence as a method to delay extradition, although they could not in the end satisfy the conditions within it. I fully accept that that is a problem, and that many extraditees will use any weapon to hand to try to postpone the evil day.
  But it is surely not beyond the bounds of the ingenuity of the serried ranks behind the Minister to devise words that exclude such cases, except where the matter is really beyond doubt. The burden of proof may be placed high; there could be a requirement that before anyone could submit such a case, he had to submit to the judge a statement of the grounds on which he was patently innocent; and the judge could say, "Even if you established all that, that is not enough". Surely that should debar the relatively rare case when, as I suggested, it is absolutely plain on the evidence that that evidence could not possibly be contradicted.
  I cannot conceive how any evidence given by the issuing country could convince someone that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, was not sitting

  GC 397
  on the Woolsack on a day on which 500 people had seen him there. My example of the crippled and disabled person is similar. I ask the Minister to take the matter away and consider whether there is a way to deal with such a case, but, for the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 65:
  Page 7, line 13, at end insert—
  "( ) territorial bar."
  The noble Baroness said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 77. The amendment deals with the matter of territorial bar. I am of course aware that in response to the previous amendment moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe, the Minister pointed out that if a bar exists, fugitives will seek to use it. So I make plain from the start that I am trying to probe some of the more complex parts of the Bill regarding where and when offences occur in the Part 1 country, and how that interacts with the existence of dual criminality.
  I raise those issues as a result of a briefing from Justice. It pointed out that the amendments are designed to implement Article 4.7 of the European arrest warrant. Article 4 is entitled,
  "Grounds for optional non-execution of the European Arrest Warrant",
  and states:
  "(the executing judicial authority may refuse to execute the EAW … Where the EAW relates to offences which: …are regarded by the law of the executing Member State as having been committed in whole or in part in the territory of the executing Member State or in a place treated as such; or…have been committed outside the territory of the issuing Member State and the law of the executing Member State does not allow prosecution for the same offences when committed outside its territory".
  The new clause would effectively bar extradition on territorial grounds if any part of the extradition offence had taken place in the territory of the United Kingdom. That safeguard is optional, as set out in the European arrest warrant, but we should of course welcome the incorporation into the Bill of any part of the arrest warrant which gives added protection. Our amendments would make that a mandatory consideration by the judge in the extradition hearing. It would effectively ensure that extradition could not take place where the individual was to face prosecution for acts carried out in the United Kingdom which do not constitute offences in that part of the United Kingdom.
  I am aware that the Minister has tabled a new amendment to Clause 63—Amendment No. 112—that will address a similar point. However, I should be grateful if the Minister would respond to this amendment, because there must be some protection in the Bill to ensure that requests for extradition can be deflected on territorial grounds. I beg to move.
  7 p.m.
  Lord Filkin: The two limbs of the optional bar in Article 4.7, to which the noble Baroness spoke and
  GC 398
  which the amendment utilises, have the following separate effects. Where the bar would apply for offences that are deemed to have occurred in part or in whole in the UK, it would have the effect of barring extradition completely. Of course, the intention is that British citizens should not be extradited for conduct which they commit in the UK legally. The Government agree with that. But the Opposition Front Bench amendment goes further than that.
  A quick example may show how. If a major drugs trafficker—without exciting the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, major drugs trafficking certainly constitutes a significant part of extradition cases—had committed serious crimes in Denmark, but a small part of his offences in the UK, under this new bar, his extradition would be barred, despite the fact that it would be much more sensible in terms of justice for him to be extradited to the place where the majority of his crime took place, where the majority of his victims were and where, probably, the most solid evidence existed to bring him to justice.
  What if there was not a strong enough case in the UK to prosecute the person for the small part of the offence in the UK, but there was overwhelming evidence in the requesting state? We would not want to let those potential criminals have a get out of any obligation to face trial for the offences for which they were charged in those circumstances. We do not want to open a loophole for the professional criminal who wilfully commits crimes, knowing that his extradition will be barred if he is canny enough to commit part of it in the UK. That is clearly unacceptable to both the Government and the victims of crime and, I suspect, the Committee.
  As the Committee will be aware, the Government have tabled amendments—Amendments Nos. 112 and 126, to which the noble Baroness referred—to strengthen Clauses 63 and 64. Their effect will be that if any part of the conduct that constitutes the offence occurs in the UK, we will be able to extradite only if the dual criminality requirement is satisfied. In other words, to put it at its crudest, if someone denied the holocaust in the UK by whatever means, it would not be possible to extradite that person for that action, even though it might be an offence in Germany.
  These amendments will put beyond any shadow of doubt that no one will be extradited for conduct which takes place in the UK which is not contrary to our law. I apologise for labouring the point, but it is a sensitive issue and it is important to put it clearly on the record.
  On the other hand, we cannot really see why a serious criminal who happens to have undertaken some of his activities in the UK—activities which we consider to be criminal—should escape extradition. That is reinforced by the point that, as we have discussed in previous Bills—the Crime (International Co-operation) Bill—so much of the serious crime about drugs and so forth is the nature of international crime. Therefore, this is not necessarily a remote or hypothetical example. Nor, I suspect, do the Opposition believe that that is what they will want to happen.

  GC 399
  I hope therefore to see that the Government's policy delivers the outcomes that we all surely want; the protection of British citizens as well as the enforcement of justice on a cross-border basis.
  The second limb of the new bar proposed by the Opposition relates to extra-territorial jurisdiction and, again, can be found in the framework decision as part of one of the optional bars to extradition. This limb of the amendment would mean that any warrant received by the UK for an offence committed extra-territorially, that is not in the requesting state, could be proceeded with only if the UK also claims extraterritorial jurisdiction over the conduct in question.
  This seems more than reasonable and it is why I would ask Members of the Committee to look at Clauses 63 and 64 of the Bill. They contain the definitions of extradition offences for the purposes of Part 1 of the Bill. In each case, subsection (4) is concerned with
  "conduct [which] occurs outside the category 1 territory".
  In such instances, the conduct will constitute and extradition offence, and therefore be extraditable, only if,
  "in corresponding circumstances equivalent conduct would constitute an extra-territorial offence under the law of the relevant part of the United Kingdom".
  In other words, the Bill as drafted already provides that in extra-territorial cases the offence has to be a UK offence and that if any part of the offence has occurred in the UK we can extradite only if we too take extra-territorial jurisdiction.
  Under Clause 10(2), the judge at the very beginning of the extradition hearing must decide whether the offence specified in the Part 1 warrant is an extradition offence. If it does not meet the requirements of either Clauses 63 or 64, proceedings must be halted and the person discharged.
  We believe that the definition of extradition offences in the Bill, with the amendments that we have tabled, strike the right balance in protecting those who have acted lawfully while in the United Kingdom, while allowing for the extradition of those who have transgressed both our own laws and those of the requesting state.
  I have spoken at length, but I hope that the reply was helpful to explain our resistance to the amendments.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to the Minister for his care in responding to the amendment. He is absolutely right in his surmise that we certainly do not intend to make it easier for people to evade justice if they are trying to commit crimes across borders. I note that several offences in the list could not be committed in more than one country—such as arson—but I well take his point that if one is dealing with sabotage or trafficking in illegal drugs, the offence could indeed be split across borders.
  We have clarified the problems surrounding the issues. I give notice that I shall raise a further problem and invite the Minister when he reaches Amendment No. 112 to explain how a company would be protected
  GC 400
  where, say, its international office is in this country and one employee is involved in an activity that leads to an offence being committed. Could the person with responsibility for the overseas employee he in any way held to be guilty of an offence under the Bill? I shall give the Minister, or his Bill team, the specifics of that case in time for him to respond when we reach Amendment No. 112.
  I recognise that throughout the Bill the Government have been trying to flesh out the detail of how this especially complicated— at least it is for me—part of the law will work. We are beginning to make progress on that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 11 agreed to.
  Clause 12 [Rule against double jeopardy]:
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 66:
  Leave out Clause 12 and insert the following new Clause—
  "RULE AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY (NO. 2)
  A person's extradition to a category 1 territory is barred by reason of the rule against double jeopardy if the judge is satisfied that the person has been finally judged by a category 1 territory in respect of the same acts and would be entitled to be discharged under the law of that territory."
  The noble Baroness said: We now turn to the issue of double jeopardy. I shall speak also to Amendment No. 192. The amendments are intended to clarify an important point regarding double jeopardy that was brought to our attention by Justice. That is that abolition of the dual criminality requirement in relation to 32 types of serious offence means that a request for extradition under the warrant need not be based on an offence known to UK law. So, if a request were made on the basis of an offence in another member state that was not an offence in the UK, the defendant must lose the protection of the rule against double jeopardy, using the proposed text in the Bill. Presumably, that is not the Government's intention.
  The European arrest warrant clearly states that a final judgment on the same acts—those are the important words—shall be a mandatory bar to surrender. Implementing legislation should reflect that broader notion of double jeopardy in order effectively to protect the rights of the individual.
  Justice has provided us with relevant recent judgments. They refer to the following cases—I apologise in advance for my pronunciation—C-187/01 Gozutok and C-385/01 Brugge, judgment of 11th February 2003. In those cases, the European Court of Justice clarified the position in relation to double jeopardy—ne bis in idem— as found in Article 54 of the Schengen convention. I am advised that it is clear from that judgment that the principle of double jeopardy, when applied in a context of mutual recognition in criminal proceedings in the EU, should be given a broad interpretation allowing for the differences in what is perceived to be a "final judgement" in the various member states.
  Justice argues that this European notion of ne bis in idem should be reflected in the text of the Bill to implement the European arrest warrant. But under

  GC 401
  current UK law, the wording contained in the Bill may provide greater procedural safeguards than a draft more closely based on the European arrest warrant provisions. I am advised that, given the provisions relating to double jeopardy contained in the Criminal Justice Bill, which has just started its long progress through your Lordships' House, it is not certain that applying the UK law in relation to double jeopardy will in fact result in a higher level of safeguard.
  In applying a test based purely on UK domestic rules of law relating to previous acquittal or conviction, the executing court would be unable to implement fully the notion of double jeopardy applying across borders within the European Union. That notion is a key development in EU judicial cooperation based on the principle of mutual recognition. As that is what the Government say they are trying to achieve, I assume that my amendment may be welcome. I beg to move.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for tabling the amendments. We are not far apart—picking up the point that she made just before she sat down—but that is not to say that I accept the amendments.
  As we all appreciate, double jeopardy is a well-established principle in extradition law, as it is in the general law in this country and legal systems across the world. That is why protection against being convicted twice for the same offence is included in the framework decision on the European arrest warrant.
  We have sought to transpose this protection from existing legislation and from the framework decision into the Bill. That is what Clauses 12 and 79 are designed to do. I believe that that is what your Lordships would want to happen, too. Clauses 12 and 79 provide that a person's extradition is barred if he would have been entitled to be discharged in equivalent circumstances in a domestic UK case. That is to say, because of a previous acquittal or conviction, assuming it were a case under domestic UK law, the person could not be prosecuted again for the same offence.
  This position, then, is quite clear. Regardless of where the previous acquittal or conviction took place, the question is whether the person would be entitled to be discharged now if it had taken place in the UK.
  These amendments would remove the existing clauses. They would put in their place an alternative double jeopardy provision. The new clause for each part would provide that extradition were barred if the person had finally been judged in a category 1 territory and would be entitled to be discharged under the law of that territory.
  The current provisions on double jeopardy are not dependent on where the conviction or acquittal took place. They simply provide for the person to be discharged if he could not be put on trial in the UK in equivalent circumstances.
  The amendments would require the judge to decide whether the person would be entitled to be discharged under the law of the country where he was finally
  GC 402
  judged, rather than under UK law. We do not believe that that enhances or adds to the existing double jeopardy provisions. A judge in this country is surely more likely to be in a position to decide whether the person would be entitled to be discharged under UK law as opposed to another country's law. Quite simply, we cannot ask or expect our district judges to become expert in the finer points of the double jeopardy laws of all other EU member states.
  The Bill as it stands provides for judges in this country when considering extradition to apply the rule against double jeopardy as we understand it in this country. I would hope that your Lordships consider this a sensible approach to deal with the issue.
  The noble Baroness raised the issue of the new Criminal Justice Bill. No doubt it will take time to roll through, but rolling through it certainly is. That Bill will reform the UK's double jeopardy law to allow for retrial where new and compelling evidence of guilt has emerged. Obviously, I cannot say too much about the Bill, but I can say that if Parliament agrees to changes that are contained in the Bill it will need to be cross-referenced and we will need to monitor carefully how the Bill progresses and what changes are made. We will have to be most careful in carrying out that monitoring.
  The proposed changes would allow us to seek to have the acquittal of a person quashed so that they could be put on trial for a second time. In cases where the person was abroad, we would seek to get the acquittal quashed before making the extradition request. Whether that request succeeded would depend on the domestic law of the requested country, in particular how absolute the provisions in its law on double jeopardy were. Turning the situation the other way round, if we get a request from a country for someone who has previously been acquitted, our courts in that situation would be expected to apply UK law on double jeopardy as it emerges from the Criminal Justice Bill.
  If the person's acquittal had not been quashed, we would have to refuse the request, even if the requesting state told us that it intended to seek to quash it. Similarly, we would have to refuse the request if the acquittal had been quashed in a manner which did not command confidence. Indeed, the ECHR would prevent extradition in those circumstances.
  However, imagine that we received a request from Canada for the extradition of a person who had been previously acquitted there. If the Canadians could demonstrate that the acquittal had been quashed by a High Court in Canada with due process, and with the person having the right to attend and participate in the hearing at which the quashing of the acquittal was considered, then, applying our law, extradition would not be barred on double jeopardy grounds.
  I apologise for speaking at some length, but thought it would be useful and for the benefit of the Committee for me to give some exposition as to how we see things working in the future.

  GC 403
  I turn back to the amendments before us. I want to make the point again that it is much better to ask our judges to apply UK law standards than try to apply the law of the requesting state. If they do, there may be many attendant difficulties. The Bill offers proper double jeopardy protection. I therefore hope that the amendment will be withdrawn.
  7.15 p.m.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to the Minister for his full and mostly helpful answer. I certainly shall refer back to Justice to see whether it wishes to raise any extra views that I did not spot while he was answering. I was intrigued by his reference to the Criminal Justice Bill. I noted that he said that there would have to be a cross-referencing between the two Bills. Is the Minister saying to the Committee that achieving Royal Assent for the Extradition Bill will be held over until after the Government achieves Royal Assent to the Criminal Justice Bill?
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am not saying that, no.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: The Minister is not too willing to be drawn on that matter at the moment. Perhaps he will survive another few reshuffles. I am sorry to be so naughty. I am grateful to the Minister. He has put a very helpful explanation on the record with great courtesy. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 12 agreed to.
  Clause 13 [Extraneous considerations]:
  Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis moved Amendment No. 67:
  Page 7, line 38, after first "of" insert "or is likely to result in"
  The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 67, I think that it would be for the convenience of the Committee if we took the whole batch of amendments—Amendments Nos. 67 to 72—now. My noble friends Lord Wedderburn and Lady Turner of Camden are detained by another Bill on the Floor of the House. For that reason, I would ask my noble friend to put on record his reply to the amendments. I beg to move.
  Lord Filkin: I indicated informally to my noble friend Lord Wedderburn that were he to be out of the room at this point, I should seek a method to put on the record what I would have said to him had he been here. In essence, that is not to delay the Committee unnecessarily over points of detail if it is possible by a little felicity to find ways of making progress.
  I would have said to him that we would feel that it was most unsatisfactory to have to extradite a person who was going to be prejudiced at his court trial on the grounds of gender or sexual orientation. We think that is most unlikely in Part 1 countries, for reasons to which we have previously spoken. We also think that the human rights clause in the Bill, Clause 21, already prevents us from extraditing in such circumstances.
  GC 404
  Nevertheless, I can see little damage in our looking again at Clauses 13 and 80 to see whether, in the light of the amendments, any improvements can be made. I say that openly. On Report, we will see where we are on these matters.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: Having regard to what my noble friend has said, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 68 to 72 not moved.]
  On Question, Whether Clause 13 shall stand part of the Bill?
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: Although Clause 13 was grouped for debate with Part I stand part, I made it clear at our previous Committee meeting that I wanted to say a few words with regard to it. The grouping on the first day was a device for one particular amendment.
  Yesterday, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, referred to what he thought was the "paranoia" on Opposition Benches with regard to the Bill. This is no paranoia. We are certainly concerned about the removal of the protection and safeguards that are inherent in our current extradition system. We certainly want a speeding up of the process, but not at the risk of increasing miscarriages of justice. Specifically we object to the removal of the dual criminality requirement in the final discretion of the Secretary of State.
  We have been told that all states which would be designated as category 1 territories had subscribed to the ECHR and believed in the right of every individual to a fair trial; and that they had signed up to the framework decision which enshrines an obligatory degree of protection to those defendants involved in the extradition hearing, surrender and subsequent trial in the requesting country. We have been told that our own judicial system is by no means 100 per cent perfect.
  Clause 13, so far as we can see, exposes the fundamental falsity of the arguments raised by the Government when we say we are concerned. Why do we need a clause which bars extradition to category 1 territories on the grounds that the defendant might subsequently be prosecuted because of his,
  "race, religion, nationality or political opinions",
  unless there is a well founded fear that it will actually happen? Examples were given in another place in which that has already happened in existing law.
  One case repeatedly referred to there and in this House is that of the seven-year delay in the extradition of Rachid Ramda to France for prosecution for his alleged part in the Paris bombings. On appeal, his extradition case was thrown out by the House of Lords. It found favour with his view that as an Arab Muslim he would not receive a fair trial in France. The conclusion is that we cannot trust our closest neighbours—geographically from London—within the European Union, with regard to a fair trial without prejudice on religious and racial grounds.

  GC 405
  In the past the Government have said, "Well, we are damned if we do and we are damned if we don't". They put this provision in as an extra safeguard, but the very fact that they conceded that it was needed proves that there is a real concern that there could be a miscarriage of justice.
  I put on record that we shall need to return to these issues in amendments on Report after we have properly considered the views put forward with regard to the Part 1 problems of protection and safeguards.
  Lord Filkin: The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, is correct: Clause 13 was not in the Bill as originally drafted because the Government did not think it was necessary. The Joint Committee on Human Rights made a specific request to us to put in such a provision. We did so not because we think that there is a risk, but because we were happy to go along with the request of an important parliamentary committee when it seemed to us that in so doing there was no damage or harm whatever. It feels a little rough, having done that, and having so responded for those reasons to be told, "That proves the point that Part 1 territory countries are inherently unsound. Everything the Government have been saying on the Bill is so much rubbish". I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, did not put the matter quite so robustly, but that is how we feel she advances the logic of the position.
  There is no harm done by acceding to the request of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. We have done so. We do not think the provision was necessary, but it puts beyond peradventure any doubt that people cannot be extradited for these reasons. I had hoped that the Committee would welcome that because, in a sense, it is just wearing a belt as well as braces.
  Clause 13 agreed to.
  Clause 14 [Passage of time]:
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 73:
  Page 8, line 5, leave out from "offence" to end of line 6.
  The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 73, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 193, which is supported by the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie. The amendments are probing in nature and query a particular issue in Clause 14, "Passage of time". This is another new clause introduced by the Government. It was welcomed in another place on Report when it was introduced into both Parts 1 and 2. We wholeheartedly support the principle that extradition should be barred if the offence in question took place an unreasonably long time ago and that for that reason it would be unjust or oppressive for the person to be extradited.
  I put on record that we appreciate that the Government had to weigh very carefully in the balance whether such a provision should go in because, as we said a short while ago, people will make the most possible use they can of any kind of bar to extradition. We are keen, as are other noble Lords, that those proved to be guilty of offences, should not be able to escape justice and extradition.
  GC 406
  The concern I raise is based on a point made by the Law Society of Scotland in its briefing, to which noble Lords have previously referred. There is, I believe, an important difference between being extradited for prosecution for a crime committed at some point in the past and being extradited to be returned to custody after becoming unlawfully at large.
  In the first case, it is clear that in some extradition cases the defendant may he simply unaware that some 20 years ago he committed an offence. Consequently, he might contest his prosecution since he believes himself to be innocent. Delay in extraditing him could be due to lack of evidence. We do not know. It is easy to understand why it might be advisable to bar the extradition because of the significant time span.
  In the second case the circumstances are very different. The person in question has already been found guilty before a court of law and has started serving his sentence; so there is no lack of knowledge. Somehow he manages to escape or abscond; therefore, he is unlawfully at large. Is it right to say that as long as he manages to avoid detection for an unspecified length of time, he should benefit from a guaranteed immunity from extradition? That is what worries us.
  How long is this "passage of time"? It seems obscure that someone who has evaded justice should, just because he has been in hiding for a period of time, become untouchable. I rather suspect that that is not what the Government ever intended. I hope that the Minister will put me right and explain how a fugitive could not benefit from the Government amendment that was moved in another place on Report. I beg to move.
  Lord Goodhart: The name of my noble friend Lord Mar and Kellie is attached to the amendment. As he is not here, I rise to support it. I must say that in this context the name Ronnie Biggs comes to mind. That was the reverse situation. In some ways, that was about as strong a case as one can get for asking why he should not have been extradited. But it was not strong enough. If someone has been convicted of an offence, unless there are genuinely humanitarian grounds for non-return, which I think could be dealt with in a different manner, I do not think that there should be a legal bar to his being returned.
  7.30 p.m.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for tabling the amendment. It provides us with the opportunity to explain an important bar to extradition in the Bill on grounds of the passage of time.
  I am rather enjoying the slight role reversal. We usually want tougher safeguards; the noble Baroness wants fewer safeguards. I am therefore defending a different position and shall approach it rather differently.
  As I am sure the Committee knows, as currently drafted, Clauses 14 and 81 bar a person's extradition if it appears that it would be "unjust or oppressive" to extradite him because of the time that has elapsed since

  GC 407
  the person is alleged to have committed the offence, or since he is alleged to have been unlawfully at large, following conviction.
  The Committee may be aware that that bar was originally included only in Part 2. However, in response to an amendment proposed by Opposition Benches in another place, we agreed that the passage of time bar is an important safeguard which should also apply in Part 1 cases.
  I am puzzled why the noble Baroness should now seek to remove the safeguard. Are we really saying that even if the extradition of someone is indisputably unjust or oppressive because of the passage of time since his conviction, his extradition would have to go ahead anyway?
  I quite accept that circumstances are unlikely to arise in which it would be unjust or oppressive to return someone simply because of the length of time since his escape from custody. I certainly would not want to suggest that we should in any way reward those who have successfully managed to evade capture for many years. Equally, it is not totally impossible to envisage such circumstances.
  I invite the Committee to imagine, for example, that a person is wanted for extradition on the ground that 40 years previously he failed to serve out the full length of his sentence following a conviction for a relatively minor crime. During that time the authorities in the requesting state had known of his whereabouts and had not attempted to seek his extradition. The person had been living openly with his family as a settled—perhaps even highly responsible—member of the community. I do not say that extradition in such circumstances is unjust or oppressive. That is a question for the courts to determine. But, equally, I do not think that we can totally discount that possibility.
  Since 1978, there have been six cases only in which the passage of time has been successfully put forward as a defence against extradition. One of those related to a person who had been convicted and was deemed to be unlawfully at large. I think that serves to illustrate the point that the circumstances are very rare indeed. but not impossible.
  Ultimately, if we are content to provide a safeguard for a person accused of offences whose extradition would be unjust or oppressive because of the passage of time, I cannot see why we should deny that safeguard for a person who is alleged to be unlawfully at large.
  GC 408
  In view of those considerations and the lack of a compelling argument to remove the safeguard, I hope that the amendments are not pushed—I know that they cannot be tonight.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: The Minister is quite right in his last assertion; that the amendments cannot be pressed tonight. I note that, as I speak, the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn of Charlton, is speaking on the Fire Services Bill. I feel for him that this group of amendments—his pride and joy—have to pass without his being present, although we are grateful to the Minister for attempting to try to respond to them.
  The noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, seemed surprised that I was trying to assist the Government in bringing criminals to justice. Perhaps I may remind him that the slogan I have adopted for the Criminal Justice Bill is, "In this party we believe in being tough on crime, but we don't believe in having rough justice". So I am trying to work the issue both ways.
  I accept what the Minister said: courts will have to take many factors into account. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, raised a good point—I am grateful for his support—when he mentioned Ronnie Biggs. It is true that we are talking about rare cases. The Government say that there will be more cases as a result of the Bill. Therefore, one assumes cases will become less rare.
  One could have a case of an imprisoned, convicted serial murderer who escaped after one day and who was tracked down only some 30 years later. Of course it must be for the court to decide in each and every case. We are trying to assist the Chamber by looking to see whether the provisions introduced in another place fairly reflect what safeguards should be in the Bill—not only against mistreating people who are innocent, but also against treating too leniently those who have been found guilty.
  So I shall carefully consider the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that there could be separate means with which to deal with humanitarian reasons. However, the Minister has gone a long way by putting some good arguments on the record. Perhaps not quite the whole way, but that is a matter for another time. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 14 agreed to.
  Clauses 15 and 16 agreed to.
  House adjourned at twenty-four minutes before eight o'clock.

  Judicial System: Consultation
  Judicial System: Consultation
  Northern Ireland: "Period of Transition"
  Northern Ireland: "Period of Transition"
  Questions for Written Answer
  Questions for Written Answer
  Intelligence and Security Committee: Annual Report
  Intelligence and Security Committee: Annual Report
  Mozambique: Customs Service
  Mozambique: Customs Service
  Iraq: Equipment Used by British Forces
  Iraq: Equipment Used by British Forces
  EU Expansion: Information about Poland
  EU Expansion: Information about Poland
  Trans-border Crime: South-East European Cooperative Initiative
  Trans-border Crime: South-East European Cooperative Initiative
  Trans-border Crime: Independent Republics of the Caucasus
  Trans-border Crime: Independent Republics of the Caucasus
  Small Arms and Light Weapons: Illicit Trade
  Small Arms and Light Weapons: Illicit Trade
  Middle East: Construction of Fences
  Middle East: Construction of Fences
  Sierra Leone: Diamonds
  Sierra Leone: Diamonds
  Justice and Home Affairs Council, 5 and 6 June
  Justice and Home Affairs Council, 5 and 6 June
  Civil Contingencies: Draft Bill
  Civil Contingencies: Draft Bill
  Ian Huntley: Self-harm
  Ian Huntley: Self-harm
  Yarl's Wood: Events of 14 and 15 February
  Yarl's Wood: Events of 14 and 15 February
  Proceeds of Crime Act 2002: Annual Report
  Proceeds of Crime Act 2002: Annual Report
  Private Sector Landlords
  Private Sector Landlords
  Environment Agency: Proposed Development at Peasmarsh
  Environment Agency: Proposed Development at Peasmarsh
  Housing Benefit: Sanctions
  Housing Benefit: Sanctions
  Prize Competitions: Review
  Prize Competitions: Review
  UK and European Parliaments: Costs
  UK and European Parliaments: Costs
  Cruise Liner Terminals
  Cruise Liner Terminals
  Rail Passenger Demand Forecasting
  Rail Passenger Demand Forecasting
  Drivers: Defective Eyesight
  Drivers: Defective Eyesight
  Rural Bus Subsidy Grant
  Rural Bus Subsidy Grant