Sitting of 24 June 2003

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

  MERSEY TUNNELS BILL (By Order)
  Order for further consideration, as amended, read.
  To be further considered on Tuesday 1 July.

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

    Euro
    Mr. Mark Lazarowicz: If he will make a statement about his discussions with Scottish business leaders about preparations for the euro. [120209]
    Mr. Iain Luke: What discussions he has had with the First Minister on the establishment of the Scottish committee for euro preparations. [120215]
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Alistair Darling): I will chair the Scottish committee that will help to provide focus for euro preparations in Scotland. The Scottish Executive will be closely involved and will support the work of the committee. The First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and the Minister for Finance and Public Services will be members. The committee will also include representatives from business, the voluntary sector, consumers and local government. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury and I will be members of both the Chancellor's standing committee and the Scottish committee.
    Mr. Lazarowicz: I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer and welcome him to his new duties. Will he tell the House how he intends to involve Scottish business in the committee that is being set up? Does he accept that if the initiative is to be really successful it must be accompanied by local as well as national initiatives? Does he support such initiatives, especially the one that is being set up in Edinburgh?
    Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The committee's membership must have a sufficiently wide brace to enable the Government to be properly
    846
    informed as we prepare for the euro, if we decide that it would be in the country's national economic interest to join. It is also important generally that as we raise awareness of the implications and advantages of the euro we should encourage local initiatives. I am sure that many hon. Members would want to be involved in that.
    Mr. Luke: When my right hon. Friend is involved in deliberations as the chair of the committee, I hope that he will remember the sixth test that was coined by his predecessor: the actual cost to Scotland in jobs and wages if the delay before joining the euro is protracted. Will he ensure that his committee deliberates with a lot of speed and gets us to join the euro as quickly as possible?
    Mr. Darling: As the Chancellor made clear in his statement on 9 June, five tests need to be met, and they were set out in 1997. The two most important are ensuring that there is convergence and that our economy is sufficiently flexible to deal with any shocks that might arise. The Chancellor also referred in his statement to the fact that if it were in our national economic interest to join the euro, we should do so. He also drew attention to the fact that some hon. Members must face the fact that if we did not join after meeting the tests, there would be a price to pay. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that one of the things that we must consider in this country, provided that the five tests are met and we believe that it is in the national economic interest to join, is the fact that we might pay a heavy price for our failure to join.
    Mrs. Jacqui Lait: It is clear from that answer that the part-time Secretary of State has binned the sixth euro test as fast as he binned Friends of Scotland. He came up with an impressive list of meetings that he will chair, so will he tell us how much time per year they will take out of his busy diary?
    Mr. Darling: I would not expect the hon. Lady to know that it is not uncommon for a member of the Cabinet to sit on a variety of Cabinet committees on the euro and other matters—it is perfectly normal. I would have thought that rather than reflecting on my work load she might want to reflect on her party's position: no matter whether it was in the interests of this country to join the euro, she would be against it as a matter of principle, even if it would be advantageous for jobs and trade. Until she can respond to that point, she has little credibility on this or any other matter.
    Mr. Alex Salmond: I warmly welcome the Secretary of State to his jobs. Further to the point made by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Luke), the Secretary of State's predecessor made a speech last month in which she argued that continuing to be outside the euro area would be deeply damaging to Scottish economic interests. Does he agree with that assessment, does he intend to make a specific assessment of Scottish convergence with the euro area, and can he really find the time to pursue his chairmanship of the euro preparations committee, given his many other responsibilities?
    Mr. Darling: I am grateful, as always, for the hon. Gentleman's unqualified welcome. I, like many of my hon. Friends, welcome the fact that he chose to give up his other job in the Parliament in Holyrood and come back to his job here. We greatly appreciate that.
    The Chancellor set out our position on the euro, which is very clear: if we are to join, we must be satisfied that the five tests that he set out in 1997 have been met. He reported earlier this month that considerable progress had been made, but that there was still more to do on sustained convergence and flexibility. What matters at the end of the day is whether it is in the United Kingdom's national economic interest to join. Scotland is part of the United Kingdom, as the voters of Scotland graphically reminded the party that the hon. Gentleman represents at the beginning of May.
    Mrs. Helen Liddell: I welcome my right hon. Friend to his new responsibilities and wish him well. I commend to him the officials of the Scotland Office, who for the past four years have carried out their jobs with great professionalism and commitment, often in very difficult circumstances. The whole House should be indebted to them.
    Turning to the euro, the Chancellor identified the housing market as a significant inhibitor to convergence. The housing market in Scotland is significantly different from that in south-east England—with the exception, perhaps, of my right hon. Friend's constituency, where the market is similar. Housing and planning are devolved matters. What plans does my right hon. Friend have to take account of Scotland's unique housing issues?
    Mr. Darling: Staff at the Scotland Office are, of course, experiencing dramatic changes as the constitution develops in this country. My right hon. Friend is absolutely right: they are extremely loyal and dedicated, and will cope with all the changes that we have to face.
    My right hon. Friend is right that, in the main, the Scottish housing market is different from the market in south-east England, although, as she says, my Edinburgh constituency in south-east Scotland is remarkably similar in many respects. The Chancellor is fully aware of those differences. Indeed, much of what he said on 9 June concerned the need for us to make the necessary changes to ensure greater stability in the housing market throughout the country. That means that we have to take into account the variations in the regions and nations of the country.
    Mr. Andrew Mitchell: During his discussions with the Scottish business community, has the Secretary of State identified any damage that has been done to Scotland by it remaining outside the euro?
    Mr. Darling: Scottish business relies to a large extent on its ability to trade not just with the rest of the UK but with Europe. Most people in Scotland believe that if the conditions were met—certainly from a business point of view—there would be huge benefits to Scottish business. Of course, there are some people who take a slightly different view, just as there are in the rest of the country, but it is our view, which I believe is right for this
    848
    country's future, that if it is in our economic interests to join in terms of jobs, trade and a series of other considerations, we should do so. What I find incredible is the Conservative party's position—that even if it were in our economic interests to join, it would still say no because of its visceral dislike of all things European.

    Pension Credit
    Ann McKechin: What discussions he has had with senior citizen organisations regarding the take-up of the pension credit in Scotland. [120210]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs. Anne McGuire): I discussed the pension credit yesterday at the older people's consultative forum in Edinburgh. The Department for Work and Pensions, through its new Pension Service and a forthcoming media campaign, is active in ensuring that pensioners receive full information about the pension credit.
    Ann McKechin: I thank my hon. Friend for her reply. She will be aware that the benefit is valuable and will help many thousands of people in Scotland. Many elderly people are, unfortunately, unable to look after their own affairs, so has she discussed with the voluntary sector, local authorities and the Scottish Executive how we can ensure that such people benefit from this valuable new incentive?
    Mrs. McGuire: My hon. Friend is correct. We need to ensure that those who are in receipt of care or who are looked after by family or carers are included. The most vulnerable pensioners have been specifically targeted since April this year with a specially designed direct mail pack, which is issued to carers or pensioners, and the campaign will continue until June 2004. As part of my ongoing discussions with the Scottish Executive, I will ensure that her points are fully taken on board in Scotland.
    John Thurso: On behalf of the Liberal Democrats, may I welcome the Secretary of State to his new duties? Is the Minister aware of the recent admission by the chair of the Inland Revenue to the Treasury Select Committee that the computers had serious problems with the tax credits, which had come as a bolt out of the blue? Given the complexity of the pension credit, what assurance can she give Scottish pensioners that the computers will work and the helplines will cope, bearing in mind that on 12 March 2002 the Secretary of State himself described the Department of Work and Pensions' computers as "decrepit"?
    Mrs. McGuire: First, may I advise the hon. Gentleman that the decrepit computers have been replaced? Secondly, I assure him that the Pension Service has extensive experience of working with the complexity, as he put it, of the pension credit. Every effort will be made to ensure that pensioners who are eligible for the pension credit take it up. As he is well aware, the new pension credit will give people with small

    849
    occupational pensions the benefit of savings that they accumulated throughout their working lives, so it is to be welcomed.
    Mr. John McFall: May I follow up the point made by the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso)? Sir Nicholas Montagu, chairman of the Inland Revenue, was called before my Committee last week. He said that the dress rehearsal went well, but that when the curtain went up on day one it was a shambles. We do not want a shambles on day one, as the pension credit is good news for many elderly people in Scotland. Given that EDS is the IT company responsible, can the utmost pressure be put on it to ensure that the first day of a rollout is good news, not bad news?
    Mrs. McGuire: The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions and the relevant Ministers are, of course, aware of the importance of getting the new pension credit right, and I am sure that the lessons of our experience and the situation that we inherited from the previous Government will be learned. My hon. Friend is correct—the pension credit is good news for pensioners across Scotland, and we should not lose sight of that core fact.
    Mr. Peter Duncan: I am sure that the Minister is aware that pension credit take-up is dependent on pensioners' and senior citizens' organisations believing that it will make a difference to them and will not be negated by the action of other Departments? When will she resolve the dispute between the DWP and the Scottish Executive over the non-payment of attendance allowance, and thus allow pensioners in self-funded care to benefit? Does not that long-running conflict, which originated under the Secretary of State when he was at the DWP, not require the full-time input of a part-time Secretary of State for Scotland?
    Mrs. McGuire: The hon. Gentleman should be aware—in fact, he is aware—that what he calls a long-running conflict was resolved some years ago. I understand that Age Concern Scotland has raised a legal issue, which it is intent on pursuing but, as far as the UK Government and the Scottish Executive are concerned, this matter has been resolved.
    Mr. Michael Connarty: After the trivia of the previous question, may I return to the important matter of support for pensioners? The minimum income guarantee was a great success for those who got it, but 20 per cent. of pensioners did not get it, either because they could not fill out the forms or because they could not get access to them. The difference with the pension credit is that we already have records of people with employment-based pensions through the Inland Revenue system. Is it not time that that system was used to seek out people with those extra pensions so that they can automatically be passported to the pension credit?
    Mrs. McGuire: I take my hon. Friend's point, but I am not sure whether we can read across from the pension credit to the minimum income guarantee. This issue has been raised before at Scottish questions, and I
    850
    can assure the House that the Department for Work and Pensions is trying every conceivable means of ensuring that pensioners who are eligible for the minimum income guarantee are advised of that fact. I again appeal to Scottish Members of Parliament, who are leaders in their own communities, not to miss the opportunity to highlight the importance of the minimum income guarantee to their pensioner constituents.

    Air Transport
    John Barrett: How many responses the Government has received to the "Future of Air Transport—Scotland" consultation document. [120212]
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Alistair Darling): As of 23 June, we had received 1,097 responses to the questionnaire and 520 letters and e-mails.
    John Barrett: I thank the new Secretary of State for that answer. Is he aware that figures he has just released to the House show that less than 3 per cent. of the 61,000 consultation documents were returned? Does he agree that in view of the importance of air transport to the economy, transport and the environment, in the remaining six days before the deadline for responses he ought to do everything he can to ensure an increased response?
    Mr. Darling: It is important that everyone who wants to respond to the consultation does so, but for various reasons many people probably do not want to respond, and the Government cannot dragoon them into doing so. With regard to Edinburgh airport, in which the hon. Gentleman, like me, has an immediate interest, and other airports in Scotland, it is important that we get a wide range of views about the projected growth and that we plan accordingly. So far, as I said, we have had a large number of responses. It is a matter of live interest, as the hon. Gentleman knows, not just in Edinburgh but in Glasgow.
    In relation to the questionnaire, it is not surprising that many people who do not have any immediate views on the subject may choose not to respond. That does not weaken the strength of the consultation. We are giving people as much opportunity as possible to make their contribution, if they wish to do so.
    Sandra Osborne: I, too, welcome my right hon. Friend to his new duties. He knows how anxious I am to see building work recommence on the new Scottish centre, which is so vital for the future of air transport in the UK. Can he tell the House when we are likely to receive an announcement in that regard?
    Mr. Darling: In the not too distant future, I hope. My hon. Friend knows that I visited the Prestwick control centre last summer, and I am well aware of the fact that people in Prestwick and the surrounding area want the second centre to be built as soon as possible. May I reassure my hon. Friend and the House that a second centre is an essential part of the National Air Traffic Services strategy? It is necessary for operational reasons

    851
    and for back-up. It is a great pity that it has taken such a time to get a decision, but I am optimistic that we will be able to say something in the not too distant future.
    Pete Wishart: Will the right hon. Gentleman have a long discussion with himself about landing charges at BAA airports? He knows that Glasgow airport recently lost a BMI service from Cardiff, and easyJet has branded Scotland's airports as far too expensive. What will he say to himself in order to address the problem?
    Mr. Darling: In relation to the charges, if there is any suggestion that BAA is not acting properly, there is provision in competition law for that to be investigated. One of the reasons that low-cost airlines have been able to cut their prices so significantly is that they have driven hard bargains with airports in order to reduce landing charges—in some cases down to pretty negligible amounts.
    The hon. Gentleman speaks from time to time about the need for a sustainable transport policy. There comes a point when someone somewhere must pay to renew airport infrastructure. I know, because I have spoken to just about everyone involved in the airline industry, that it is the view of some low-cost operators that that is someone else's problem. They want to drive a hard deal, and in some cases they are not interested in an airport being done up, because they are not willing to pay for the cost of that. For the long-term sustainability of air transport, we need to make sure that infrastructure is replaced and upgraded, and that must be paid for.
    If the hon. Gentleman has a specific complaint about BAA airports in Scotland, I am sure the competition authorities will be happy to hear from him.
    Mrs. Jacqui Lait: lf the consultation on the right hon. Gentleman's airport strategy should suggest that increased capacity requires a northern hub at either Manchester or Edinburgh-Glasgow, how will he speak up for Scotland's airports and advise his fellow Cabinet members as Secretary of State for Transport?
    Mr. Darling: When I set up the consultation exercise in July last year, the question was not Manchester versus Edinburgh or Glasgow; the question was whether it would be possible or desirable to have a Scottish hub airport. The hon. Lady may know, although perhaps the view from Beckenham is rather different, that that has been a long-running argument in Scotland. [Interruption.] The argument in central Scotland is between Edinburgh and Glasgow, both of which are in Scotland. I do not think there is a problem there.
    What I will have to decide during the course of this year, prior to publishing the White Paper at the end of it, is whether there is an argument for trying to build a hub airport in central Scotland or whether Edinburgh and Glasgow can carry on working in tandem, as they do at the moment. Frankly, that is the argument. Manchester is competing increasingly with airports in south-east England rather than Scotland, although people from Scotland use that airport because it is a very good one.

  The Advocate-General was asked—
  ADVOCATE-GENERAL

    Human Rights
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: What human rights issues have been raised with her since 20 May. [120183]
    The Advocate-General for Scotland (Dr. Lynda Clark): Since 20 May, I have received intimation of 28 devolution issue minutes, all of which have concerned human rights issues. They were all raised in connection with criminal proceedings and concerned a wide range of matters including pre-trial delay, actions of police officers prior to arrest and surveillance carried out before the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 came into force.
    Mr. Dalyell: As a United Kingdom Law Officer, does the Advocate-General think that the Scottish and indeed English legal traditions are at ease with the Guantanamo Bay mentality of certain of those surrounding the President of the United States about not bringing to trial those Iraqis who have been put in custody, whatever they may have done?
    The Advocate-General: I have the highest respect for both the Scottish and English legal traditions; of course, one of my jobs as Advocate-General is to explain the Scottish legal tradition to other countries. In the Adjournment debate that my hon. Friend recently secured, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell), gave him some information about the situation of people who were detained. I have nothing to add.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: What consideration has the Advocate-General given to the human rights implications of the treaty with the United States Government entered into by the Home Secretary and published on 21 May, which provides for extradition without prima facie evidence of any offence having been committed and is also of retrospective application? Does not that treaty raise fundamental issues about the human rights of people in Scotland who may be subject to its provisions?
    The Advocate-General: I regret to inform the right hon. and learned Gentleman that, as he well knows, the consideration that I give is in private, and any advice that I give, in accordance with normal convention, is not disclosed.

    Devolution
    Miss Anne McIntosh: What devolution issues she has considered since 20 May. [120225]
    Ann McKechin: What devolution issues have been raised with her since 20 May under the Scotland Act 1998. [120226]
    Annabelle Ewing: What devolution issues have been raised since 20 May. [120227]
    The Advocate-General: All the 28 devolution issues intimated to me since 20 May have concerned human rights issues. I therefore refer the hon. Ladies to the reply I gave some moments ago to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell).
    Miss McIntosh: May I congratulate the hon. and learned Lady on retaining her post in the recent reshuffle, but express my disappointment that the part-time Secretary of State for Scotland has not remained in the Chamber to support her during questions?
    I wish to revert to a subject that I have raised before: the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 2003 and its impact on agricultural tenancies and limited partnerships in Scotland. Will the Advocate-General please urgently give her advice on this issue, which is causing severe consternation among practising lawyers throughout Scotland, and especially among those specialising in agricultural holdings? It is having a severe impact of which she might not previously have been aware. Will she address the issue urgently?
    The Advocate-General: I am very grateful to the hon. Lady for her congratulations, which I am sure are heartfelt. As far as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is concerned, as she well knows, the Law Officers are independent of all Secretaries of State, but I am sure that he is very busy.
    On the substantive matter that the hon. Lady raised, I am aware that she has raised it previously and flagged up concerns, which we take into account. However, it is not my role to advise individual members of the public or solicitors about the difficulties that they might be having. Individual constituents who are having difficulties can raise the matter, and if there is any ground for challenge they can take it up.
    Ann McKechin: The Government recently announced proposals for a supreme court. Can my hon. and learned Friend advise me whether she intends to consult members of the Scottish legal profession and the Civic Society in Scotland about how that court should proceed?
    The Advocate-General: I regularly have informal discussions with members of the legal profession about a whole range of subjects, and I am sure that that issue will come up from time to time. The responsible Secretary of State will undertake the formal consultation and the issues will be widely canvassed. Indeed, I was encouraged by hon. Members on both sides of the House who represent Scottish constituencies to take part in that. Plainly, the supreme court is a matter of considerable interest in Scotland.
    Annabelle Ewing: Does the Advocate-General agree with Lord Hope, the senior Scottish Law Lord, that the new supreme court would have to be distinct in all respects from the English legal system in order not to fall foul of the treaty of Union? Would this not be a timely opportunity to repatriate final jurisdiction over civil law in Scotland to Scottish courts?
    The Advocate-General: There has been a long tradition of appeals from civil cases going to the House of Lords. As part of the general consultation, Lord Hope's comments will be taken into account, along with the many other comments that have been made. I will consider all the issues in due course.

  CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State was asked—
  CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

    Legal Aid
    Mr. David Kidney: What recent representations the Department has received in favour of increasing legal aid payment rates for criminal law practitioners. [121035]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. David Lammy): My Department receives representations from a variety of sources. The most recent was from the Legal Aid Practitioners Group in March.
    Mr. Kidney: I congratulate my hon. Friend and the rest of the ministerial team on their appointments and wish them and the Department a very successful future.
    Does my hon. Friend accept that a growing number of criminal legal aid practitioners are giving up legal aid work because they cannot make it pay? More generally, is he aware of research by the Legal Services Commission showing that in as many as 2 million cases a year people with legal problems cannot find legal help? Does he share my concern that unless there is further reform and investment in the legal aid system its very viability is at stake, with the consequence for the criminal legal system that we would not have the bright, talented lawyers of the future for defence and prosecution work? If he shares that concern, what is he going to do about it?
    Mr. Lammy: I agree that criminal legal practitioners do a wonderful job in representing people from some of the most disadvantaged and socially excluded communities. Of course, they have raised, and continue to raise, concerns about their remuneration. My hon. Friend will understand that criminal practitioners, like many people who dedicate their lives to public service, will not receive the same amount as they would receive if they were in private practice. That is the decision that they make. He is wrong to suggest that there is a difficulty in the recruitment and retention of criminal legal practitioners. In fact, over the past few years there has been a loss of only 17 offices out of the 2,900 offices with criminal defence contracts. We continue to

    855
    monitor the situation, and we are undertaking a widespread consultation on and review of legal aid to ensure that we have the best provision for the future.
    Mr. Gary Streeter: Before the Minister authorises an increase in criminal law legal aid rates, will he make a real mark for himself in his new Department by organising a thorough review of the Legal Aid Board and its practices? When we live in a society in which someone who chooses to break into a house with the intention of stealing gets legal aid to bring an action for damages against the householder, has not the world gone barking mad; and is it any wonder that the general public are losing confidence in the Legal Aid Board?
    Mr. Lammy: The hon. Gentleman will know that the former Lord Chancellor agreed to a consultation on the supply, demand and purchase of legal aid, which began on 5 June. It will continue for some months; let us see what the outcome is.

    Criminal Justice Policy
    Mr. Jim Cunningham: If he will make a statement on the Lord Chancellor's responsibilities in relation to criminal justice policy. [121036]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie): The Department for Constitutional Affairs will work closely with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to drive forward the Government's priority for reform of the criminal justice system. In respecting the authority of the courts, the Department will focus in particular on improving court performance, on reducing the number of ineffective trials, and on the better enforcement of criminal penalties, especially fines.
    Mr. Jim Cunningham: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer, but I am sure that he will be aware that there is public concern about sentencing by judges. In the light of that, does he intend to set up an advisory board on the appointment of judges?
    Mr. Leslie: As my hon. Friend knows, we have to respect the independence of the judiciary and the decisions that it makes on individual cases. On his second point, the Government will now consult on the creation of an independent judicial appointments commission, so that we can take the selection process of the judiciary out of the hands of politicians.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: That is all very well, but in the meantime, is the Lord Chancellor going to continue to appoint judges? If so, how is he going distance himself from the far more political Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs?
    Mr. Leslie: The allegedly far more political Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs is, indeed, the Lord Chancellor. The Lord Chancellor will continue with his obligations under the law in regard to the appointment of the judiciary until legislation is introduced to change that arrangement. There will be widespread consultation, and
    856
    we envisage a consultation paper being published in the middle of July, with plenty of opportunities for all hon. Members to comment on the process.
    Mr. David Heath: The formation of the new Department resembles a cunning plan by the Lord Chancellor of 1075, who, as hon. Members will recall, was Baldrick. Will the Minister confirm that the new Department has no additional judicial responsibilities? In fact, it has fewer than the previous Department had, because it has lost the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service. Should there not be a shift of responsibility from the Home Office to the new Department in relation to sentencing and, possibly, penal matters? That would create a proper Department of Justice, which is what we were led to believe would be the function of the new Department.
    Mr. Leslie: I commend the hon. Gentleman on his historical research. I was not familiar with that particular point. I hope that he supports in principle the moves to create a supreme court and an independent judicial appointments commission. Until legislation makes changes to the arrangements, the Department for Constitutional Affairs will continue to arrange the appointments to the judiciary, to administer the courts and a number of tribunals, to provide legal aid and legal services including the criminal defence service, to promote the reform and revision of the English civil law and to raise public confidence in the court system in general. That is a big and important task.
    Keith Vaz: When the former Lord Chancellor gave evidence to the Select Committee on the Lord Chancellor's Department on 18 April, he said that the existing arrangements were perfectly satisfactory. Will the Minister tell us whether the previous Lord Chancellor was consulted about the changes, and what conversations have taken place between him and the present Lord Chancellor?
    Mr. Leslie: I am aware of the exchange of correspondence between the previous Lord Chancellor and the Prime Minister on these matters; that is in the public domain. The former Lord Chancellor resigned his post in that way and on amicable terms. It is important that we now focus on this crucial constitutional reform agenda, which involves reforms for a purpose, to ensure that we achieve a greater level of independence in the appointment of the judiciary and take the supreme court out of the second Chamber of Parliament. Discussions on these matters will be ongoing once we have published the consultation paper in the middle of July.
    Mr. David Trimble: A judicial appointments commission has been set up in Scotland on a non-statutory basis. Are we to take it from what has been said today that there is no intention of doing that here, and that a judicial appointments commission on a non-statutory basis has definitely been ruled out?
    Mr. Leslie: The right hon. Gentleman raises an important point. Scotland already has an independent judicial appointments commission, and in Northern

    857
    Ireland such a commission is in the process of being established. We feel that for England and Wales a statutory route is the best way forward, but we shall consult on the specific details of many of these matters. The right hon. Gentleman and others may want to raise questions and issues in the House.

    Lord Chancellor
    Mr. David Amess: What consultations the Department has had on how long the title of Lord Chancellor will remain in existence. [121037]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie): Although there was no consultation in advance of the reshuffle, the Government recognise that creating a supreme court and an independent judicial appointments commission will mean abolishing the current role of the Lord Chancellor. Therefore, we will consult on these changes to ensure that the final details take full account of the constitutional importance of abolishing that post.
    Mr. Amess: Will the Minister now admit that this arrogant Government have handled the whole issue of the Lord Chancellor's Department appallingly? Is not the reality that the Government have held no meaningful consultations on this issue, and given the Prime Minister's complacent answer on 19 June, they have little intention of having any proper, meaningful consultation?
    Mr. Leslie: I have to disabuse the hon. Gentleman of his views on this matter. We will be having a full consultation: a paper will be published on 14 July and consultation will run until, I think, November. I do not know how many members of the Conservative Opposition have been consulted on their own forthcoming reshuffle. I am looking to see if there is any reaction from their colleagues on the Front Bench. No, I do not think they know what will happen in their reshuffle. The decisions have been made, we are clear about the direction we are going for, and there will be widespread consultation.
    Mr. Graham Allen: May I congratulate the two new Ministers on the Front Bench, and remind them, as they were probably at school at the time, that they are delivering on a long-standing commitment from the 1993 Labour party conference to establish a judicial appointments commission and a supreme court? Opposition Members whinge about this being done on the back of a fag packet, as one hon. Member said, but these policies have a long and honourable provenance. Many Labour Members are delighted that they are being implemented, and look forward to the creation of a fully fledged Ministry of Justice perhaps this time next year.
    Mr. Leslie: I would not wish to comment on the latter part of my hon. Friend's contribution, but he has a long provenance of his own on these matters. He has written extensively on constitutional affairs, and he has long advocated many of the changes that are now moving
    858
    forward. I am interested to know from Opposition Members whether they support a supreme court and an independent judicial appointments commission. They do not seem to have a policy.
    Mr. William Cash: In an answer to me on Thursday 19 June, the Prime Minister admitted that the transfer of functions from the Lord Chancellor to the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs will be completed only when the position of Lord Chancellor is abolished. When will the transfer of functions order come in, and will we have to wait 18 months until the Act of Parliament that authorises it goes through?
    Mr. Leslie: The Ministers of the Crown Act 1975 sets out the provisions for a transfer of functions order. We anticipate that an order will come forward quickly, and that will be done in the usual way.
    Mr. Cash: In the meantime, almost all the matters that the Minister has dealt with raise serious questions about the amount of money that will be made available and the accountability of the Minister and his colleague to answer those questions in the House. How can he justify answering questions on matters for which he is not directly accountable when there has been no transfer of statutory functions to him?
    Mr. Leslie: I can do no more than appear before the House and account for the new Department for Constitutional Affairs, which is what my hon. Friend and I are doing today. We are open to be questioned on any of these matters, and we shall continue to answer those questions.

    Courthouse (Colchester)
    Bob Russell: If he will make a statement on progress with proposals for a new courthouse in Colchester. [121038]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. David Lammy): It is anticipated that a new courthouse in Colchester will be ready for use during 2007. Work is now in progress on the outline business case for the public-private partnership contract.
    Bob Russell: The Minister will be aware from the detailed briefing that we have been banging on about that matter for four or five years. We have had delay, dither, delay and dither. We have been promised that the private finance initiative will deliver a new courthouse speedily. Will he confirm that another year was wasted because his Department, whatever it was called in those days, spent a year trying to resolve whether Grays Thurrock court should close? That has caused delay across Essex.
    Mr. Lammy: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that it is about courthouses in the entirety of Essex. There has been a debate about whether Grays Thurrock court should close but a new, fit-for-the-purpose courthouse in Colchester is on the way by 2007. I think that the people of Colchester will thank the Government for giving them that by 2007.

    Scotland Office
    Mr. Alex Salmond: What the status is of the Scotland Office within the Department for Constitutional Affairs; and if he will make a statement. [121039]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie): Staff in the Scotland Office retain their separate identity within the Department for Constitutional Affairs. They are accountable to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland for their decisions and actions on policy matters in the normal way.
    Mr. Salmond: In that case, where has the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire), gone? She went precisely at the moment when she could have explained to the House whether the Department still exists, as claimed by the Leader of the House, or whether it is an empty shell, as is patently obvious to everyone else. Lord Hope of Craighead has suggested that a Blairite constitutional court could contravene the treaty of Union. Do the Government have a policy on that? Are they going to restore the final court of appeal for civil matters to Scotland, as is already the case for criminal matters? What is the Government's policy on those Scottish matters and where is the Under-Secretary of State?
    Mr. Leslie: I seem to recall that, about half an hour ago, the Under-Secretary of State was answering Scottish questions. Indeed, she continues to work with the Secretary of State for Scotland on Scottish policy matters. She has just answered those questions and will continue to do so in the normal way. She is responsible and accountable in that respect.
    In terms of the supreme court, some of those questions will obviously be at the centre of the consultation paper that will be published on 14 July. I look forward to the hon. Gentleman's comments in that respect.
    Mr. Salmond: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that answer, I give notice that I intend to raise the matter on a motion for the Adjournment.

    House of Lords Reform
    Mr. Clive Soley: When the Government will respond to the Second Report from the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform. [121040]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie): We aim to reply to the second report of the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform shortly.
    Mr. Soley: Following the very welcome changes to the constitution that the Government have made recently, I hope that my hon. Friend will ensure that we can debate the Joint Committee's report, because there is a real opportunity for both Houses to move forward on constitutional change. While I am not looking for
    860
    further debates on Putney heath à la 400 years ago, there are significant changes to be made and the House of Lords could start by electing their own Speaker, instead of having its Speaker appointed by the Government. I am sure that you, Mr. Speaker, would not like the Government to appoint you in this House and we should not accept it in the second Chamber either.
    Mr. Leslie: I agree with my hon. Friend. The Conservative party seems keen to defend the appointment of the speakership of the House of Lords by the Prime Minister, which is a rather curious policy to advocate and to put in its future manifesto. I have read the Joint Committee's second report. As I say, we will respond in due course. Some important issues are raised in that but the Joint Committee recognised, not least in respect of the votes in this House on 4 February, that there has not been a massive amount of clarity: hon. Members declined to back any option, whether fully appointed, fully elected or a mixture of the two.
    Mr. David Cameron: Can the Minister explain why the Government have failed to deliver on an elected House of Lords, which was in their manifesto, but have managed to abolish the office of the Lord Chancellor, which was not in their manifesto? Do they just make it up as they go along?
    Mr. Leslie: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is advocating the return of the hereditary peerage to the second Chamber. He may not have noticed, but this Government have got rid of the bulk of hereditary peers from the second Chamber. That was a radical step forward and we will continue radically to reform the constitution in the manner set out in the reshuffle.
    Mr. Chris Bryant: Now that the Government are very wisely taking the Law Lords out of the House of Lords, could they advance one further step and remove the bishops as well, even if the bishops have in recent days been trying to make themselves a little more representative of the general public?
    Mr. Leslie: I cannot say that we have published specific plans in that respect as yet. We will respond to the second report of the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform, but the creation of a supreme court and an independent judicial appointments commission gives us a number of great opportunities to look at some of these issues in the round.

    Judicial Appointments
    Mr. John Hayes: What the Lord Chancellor's functions are in respect of the appointment of judges. [121041]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie): The responsibility of the Lord Chancellor in advising Her Majesty and the Prime Minister on senior judicial appointments, and in making other judicial

    861
    appointments himself, will continue in exactly the same way as before, until a new independent judicial appointments commission is created by legislation.
    Mr. Hayes: Given that there seems to be little evidence—or little evidence that the Government have produced, at least—to suggest problems with the existing system, and given that there is no evidence whatsoever of consultation before the changes were announced, what were the terms of reference that guided the changes, and how long will the transition take in respect of the transitional post occupied by this reluctant post-holder? Is it not true that this is about not the separation of powers, but the concentration of power in the hands of the Prime Minister and a few of his acolytes? This is not so much serious constitutional reform as a soap opera: not "Neighbours" and not even "Friends", but "flatmates".
    Mr. Leslie: That was a very well rehearsed question, but we believe that it is important to take the judiciary selection process out of the hands of politicians. We are going to consult widely on the details, and a document will be published on 14 July. If the hon. Gentleman is seriously suggesting that he wishes to retain the current system—[Interruption.] He appears not to be saying either way, but if that is his wish he is perfectly free to write in to the consultation.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS
  The Leader of the House was asked—
  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    Programming
    Sir Nicholas Winterton: To ask the Leader of the House if he will make a statement on progress with the arrangements for programming of Bills. [121027]
    The Leader of the House of Commons (Peter Hain): The Government believe that the arrangements for the programming of Bills are broadly satisfactory. It is in the interests of both sides of the House to agree a sensible programme for consideration of Bills.
    Sir Nicholas Winterton: On behalf of the whole House, I ask the new Leader of the House—I wish him well in his new responsibilities—whether it is right that a programme motion that is decided by the Government without consultation or debate should take place immediately after the vote on Second Reading of a Bill. Although I believe it right that the Government should decide the out-date from Standing Committee, does he not agree that it would be better for the whole House, and for its integrity and reputation, if such matters were discussed under the independent Chairman of the Standing Committee by the Programming Sub-Committee of that Committee? That way, all matters could be discussed and the Opposition parties could have a real input into what they wish to debate in Committee.
    Peter Hain: May I first acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's long and admirable record on these matters, especially in his role as Chairman of the Procedure Committee? I should like to discuss those matters with him, and I recognise the points that he makes. Programming is obviously vital—no one in the House seriously challenges that view. [Interruption.] Apparently, the shadow Leader of the House does, but then he has not been willing to engage the Opposition co-operatively in discussions on establishing programmes that are acceptable to all sides. However, I shall look into the issue that the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) raises.
    John Cryer: I welcome my right hon. Friend to his new post, but does he recognise that there have been problems with, and shortcomings in, the programming of Bills? For instance, certain key clauses in the Licensing Bill, which had its Third Reading in the House of Commons only a few days ago, were not debated and therefore not voted on. We must deal with such shortcomings; otherwise, they will become increasingly glaring.
    Peter Hain: Obviously, as the process develops and becomes more refined by agreement of the House, those issues will have to be examined.
    Mr. Paul Tyler: We welcome the fact that the Leader of the House is prepared to think afresh about these issues, and I encourage him to be radical in examining ways in which the business of the House can be managed more intelligently. Will he give the House a cast-iron guarantee that, if he produces radical proposals, he will not on this occasion be mugged, gagged and forced to recant by the heavies from No. 10 and No. 11 Downing street? If the Liberal Democrat proposals for improving the income tax regime are still to the Leader of the House's taste, will he also examine our proposals for improving the business of the House?
    Peter Hain: Being mugged by the hon. Gentleman will, I am sure, be a taxing experience. As to his question, it is for the Modernisation Committee to examine, but I will obviously want to take part in that discussion.

    Pre-legislative Scrutiny
    Mr. Graham Allen: What discussions he has had with Government Departments and others to ensure that all Bills in the next Session will be available for pre-legislative scrutiny. [121029]
    The Leader of the House of Commons (Peter Hain): The Government are committed to increasing the number of Bills that are published in draft for pre-legislative scrutiny, and we are working hard to achieve that. Five Bills have been published in draft this Session so far, and more will follow.
    Mr. Allen: Following the demise of my right hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), some of the steam has gone out of the desire for pre-legislative scrutiny. Will the Leader of the House ensure that

    863
    Chairs of Select Committees and Departments bring forward Bills for pre-legislative discussion? In particular, will he examine the draft constitution of the European Union and ensure that it is put before the House for pre-legislative scrutiny in draft form—not after it has been agreed at the IGC, when we will be faced with a simple yes or no? The people of Britain and hon. Members deserve to be involved in discussing and revising the draft EU constitution, and not be presented with a fait accompli.
    Peter Hain: On the general principle, five draft Bills have already been published this Session, and four more are to follow, which makes nine in comparison with six during the last Session. On my hon. Friend's substantive point, I acknowledge his creative and innovative ideas and I will want to examine them. Let us pause for moment and look at the process ahead of us. The IGC is about to start, following the conclusion of the European Convention. It will probably start in the autumn and could take a year. Meanwhile, we have an agreement with the European Scrutiny Committee and we have deposited for scrutiny the Praesidium draft texts and produced explanatory memorandums. Members of Parliament have had many opportunities to debate the proposed constitution and there will be future opportunities: indeed, I shall make a further announcement shortly.
    Mr. Eric Forth: The junior Minister in the Department for Constitutional Affairs confirmed a few minutes ago that setting up an appointments commission would require legislation. Can the tax-raising Leader of the House please confirm that any appointments commission would be fully and statutorily independent of the Home Secretary; that the Home Secretary would have no direct or indirect role in the appointment of judges under such legislation; and that the legislation can be guaranteed pre-legislative scrutiny of the sort that the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) mentioned? Would any Bill to set up a supreme court also have full pre-legislative scrutiny? I hope that the part-time Leader of the House can confirm those matters.
    Peter Hain: I do not know why the right hon. Gentleman is singling out the Home Secretary, which, frankly, seems a bit unfair. However, the objective is to establish an independent procedure, which is what it says. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, and as made clear by the Lord Chancellor, a consultation paper on all these matters will be published on 14 July. At that point, the right hon. Gentleman and all hon. Members will have the opportunity to consider how to proceed. I would have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would welcome both the consultation and the legislation to follow.
    Mr. Tom Clarke: While I welcome my right hon. Friend to his post, may I ask for his assurance that the draft Disability Bill will enjoy the widest possible consultation? Will that consultation include the need for a single equality Act—necessary if
    864
    we are to pursue the policy of amalgamating the various commissions, including the Disability Rights Commission?
    Peter Hain: I acknowledge my right hon. Friend's long interest in and expertise on disability matters. We hope to publish the Bill by the end of the year and it will obviously be a candidate for pre-legislative scrutiny, subject to further consideration.

  The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, was asked—
  HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

    Accountability
    Norman Baker: To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, what steps he is taking to improve the mechanisms for accountability of the Commission to the House. [121030]
    Sir Archy Kirkwood (Representing the House of Commons Commission): The Commission makes considerable efforts to be open and accountable. I answer both written and oral questions, and the Commission's annual report contains full information about the work, performance and plans of the House's administration. The House may like to know that the latest edition, in a revised and improved format, will be published in a fortnight's time. It is not quite Harry Potter, but it will repay careful study.
    In recent months, the Commission has also introduced pages on the parliamentary website describing its role and work, and it now also publishes its minutes on the internet. The Commission is financially accountable through the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee. Finally, the Commission is supported and advised by six Committees of right hon. and hon. Members, who represent the interests of Members generally and act as a channel for their views.
    Norman Baker: I am grateful for that long answer from my hon. Friend, who has a good record on freedom of information, so I do not doubt his commitment to the accountability of the Commission. However, does he accept that the way in which the House administration is organised, with its myriad Committees—Broadcasting, Catering, Accommodation and Works, and so on—obscures accountability? Would not it be more sensible if the House managed itself in a way that reduced the number of Committees?
    Sir Archy Kirkwood: We are always interested in Members' views on how we might reform the system that we use to administer the House. The consultation involved in the six existing Committees that sit under the Commission is a sophisticated and sensitive method of

    865
    consultation that hon. Members have used to great effect in the past. I would be reluctant to change that unless there was a real reason for doing so.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS
  The Leader of the House was asked—
  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    IT Equipment
    David Taylor: To ask the Leader of the House what plans he has to widen the standard range of IT equipment made available to hon. Members and their staff in constituency offices. [121031]
    The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Phil Woolas): Mr Speaker's Advisory Panel on the Members' Allowances keeps the level of provision under review. As hon. Members will know, the Information Committee provides advice on the equipment available.
    866
    If my hon. Friend has suggestions, the best way forward might be to submit them to the Information Committee or the Advisory Panel.
    David Taylor: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his appointment. In my six years as a Member of Parliament, the volume, range and complexity of data that floods through the average constituency office has increased to such a degree that we need improved facilities. In particular, we would benefit from the wider availability of broadband, as well as the increasing use of video facilities and equipment. Both are essential for modern parliamentarians.
    Mr. Woolas: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind words. The House may be interested to know that the Information Committee is at present reviewing the equipment provided to take on board some of the points that he has made. All hon. Members will recognise that the complexity of the information technology that is available can improve the service that we give to our constituents. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is committed to doing exactly that.

Windsor Castle
12.33 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett): With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement on the serious breach of security at Windsor castle last Saturday evening, 21 June. The Metropolitan Police Commissioner has already apologised personally to the royal family and, on behalf of the Government and the House, I too offer my deep regret to Her Majesty and the royal family for the events of Saturday evening.
Yesterday afternoon, I received a six-page report from the commissioner. It is a preliminary report, which I have discussed with the commissioner this morning. A further detailed review has already been set in train. However, it may help the House if I summarise the chronology of events in the report.
At 8 pm, Aaron Barschak appeared at the main entrance of Windsor castle. He was refused entry by the police and, following an impromptu public comic turn, was asked to move on.
At about 10 pm, Mr. Barschak entered the castle grounds at Chapter mews. He climbed a steep bank, scaled a tree and leaped across on to the castle wall. From here, he climbed to the north terrace.
As he advanced along the north terrace, he was challenged by a contractor. By this time he had changed into fancy dress.
Mr. David Cameron: It was the Lord Chancellor.
Mr. Blunkett: I am not aware that he was wearing a wig at the time.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: And lady's tights.
Mr. Blunkett: Actually, this matter is quite serious.
Mr. Barschak presented as being slightly drunk and said that he was a party guest who had lost his way. The contractor escorted him to one of the side entrances to the castle, where a police officer was on duty. The police officer, who had to remain at his post, asked the contractor to take Mr. Barschak to the main entrance to the party. There was no further challenge from either the police or other staff controlling access to the party. Mr. Barschak was able to get unacceptably close to Prince William.
Mr. Keith Simpson: He kissed him.
Mr. Blunkett: We do not have confirmation of that.
Having appeared at the prince's side, Mr. Barschak then made his way to the bar, where a member of the castle staff challenged him. He was handed over to the police and subsequently arrested. Following interview and investigation by the police, which is still continuing, Mr. Barschak was released on bail.
I am sure that the House will appreciate that I have to be very careful, in commenting on the incident, to ensure that I do not prejudice any possible police action against Mr. Barschak. Nevertheless, his actions have exposed
868
an appalling failure in the security at Windsor castle, which simply should not have happened. I know that the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis agrees with this view.
I am determined that lessons should be learned from this incident. A detailed police inquiry is being conducted by a senior officer, Commander Frank Armstrong of the City of London police. The report of that investigation will determine conclusively what went wrong on the night, and whether disciplinary action needs to be taken. That report will be available within the next four weeks. It is my intention, in consultation with Sir John Stevens, to publish the report.
However, neither the police nor I are awaiting that report before considering what further security measures need to be taken. This is the subject of the most urgent work with the royal household by the Metropolitan police and my officials.
My particular concern is that this very serious breach of security occurred despite there being extensive security and surveillance measures already in place at Windsor castle. Further work has been carried out over the past few months, and more is planned for the autumn. Security at all royal residences remains under constant review, but at this stage we have no reason to believe there were any technical failures at Windsor on Saturday night.
Assistant Commissioner David Veness of the Metropolitan police has made it clear that the events of Saturday night are wholly unacceptable, and I share that view. That is why, within the confines of the inquiry and possible further police action, I have sought today to give the House a picture of those events.
I want to assure the House that we will work with the police and the royal household to ensure that lessons can be learned from this event that can only improve the security of the royal family for the future. I know that the whole House will share that objective.
Mr. Oliver Letwin: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for his statement and for giving me early sight of it, although that conventional courtesy was perhaps less important than usual as we have all read it in the press.
I take this opportunity to repeat in the House what I have already said outside: we are not aiming to decapitate the Home Secretary or anyone else. Our purpose in considering the statement and the events to which it refers should be to learn the lessons and improve the systems of protection rather than to satisfy any political or administrative bloodlust.
It is clear that the system failed. If there was human failure, as the Home Secretary seems to imply, that is not a sufficient explanation, because human beings do fail; the point of systems is to make up for their failings, to ensure that the outcome is good even when things go wrong on the way.
The House, and, I hope, the Government, will not want to focus solely on the immediate lessons and the immediate questions. There are also wider lessons. This episode and the systemic failure that it represents is an important metaphor for wider systemic failure. Faced with the current terrorist threat, Whitehall is doing many of the right things, but it is doing them far too

869
lethargically. I have recently seen a letter from the emergency planning officer of a county council. It is one of a number of similar communications that I have received from emergency planners around the country over the past 18 months.
In the letter, that senior official tells us:
"In respect of measures to assist in dealing with … the chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear threat … the time this is taking to implement across the country is a cause for concern".
Is not the real lesson, the biggest lesson of this latest lamentable episode, that, as I have been saying for more than a year, the required sense of urgency is missing? Is not this latest episode a wake-up call?
It is all very well—indeed, it is very well—for the Home Secretary to ask for a report from the commissioner after the episode, but can he tell us whether he asked for reports on the progressive improvement of royal security in each of the last 18 months? I suspect that the Home Secretary and his colleagues would regard that question as naive. I suspect they think that I do not understand how busy he is; but the point is that I do understand how busy he is.
The Home Secretary is too busy—too busy to wake up each morning and to go to bed each evening worrying exclusively about the systems of civil protection in this country. Given the present level of threat, constantly emphasised by the right hon. Gentleman and by the Prime Minister, and recently re-emphasised by the head of MI5, and given the current deficiencies in our systems of civil protection, all too glaringly illustrated by the recent episode, we need a heavyweight political figure who can spend morning, noon and night worrying about those matters, and harassing the various agencies.
Before the Home Secretary retorts that a new Department will not help, let me restate, as I have on numerous occasions over the past 18 months, that I do not believe that a new Department is required. What is required is, rather, a centre of energy in the form of a senior Minister, spending his or her whole time energising those responsible for civil protection in Britain.
Such a Minister could be located within the Cabinet Office or within the Home Office itself, a Department which, I remind the Home Secretary—[Interruption.]—and the Chief Whip, who is muttering from a sedentary position—[HoN. MEMBERS: "As usual".] For three long months, under their aegis, the Department did not even have a Minister with part-time responsibility for those matters.
Will the Home Secretary, for our safety and for his peace of mind, take the opportunity of this episode to consider afresh what is genuinely intended as a constructive way forward?
Mr. Blunkett: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's assurance that there is no bloodlust. We all share the view that, if lessons are to be learned, we should move quickly to put things right. We also share his view that systemic failure occurred on this occasion.
I have already made it clear that the technology that was put in place did not fail, so there was clearly a failure in the systems for checking; there was human error and a failure to respond to particular indications of intrusion
870
and to ensure that after the initial checks had been made, continuing identity checks were made in the castle itself. All those lessons will be learned.
Let me deal with the substantive issue—what the right hon. Gentleman described as a metaphor. Were the emergency planning officers right to believe that, if it has taken time to deal with the very substantive chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear threat and if undue time has been taken to put in place the tens of millions of pounds that we are now spending to counteract that threat, there is a read-over to this event and therefore that urgency of action was the cause of the failure as well as not having a security tsar in the Cabinet, separate from the Minister responsible for counter-terrorism and policing, including MI5, S013 and S014 and the wider special branch? That is the issue that the right hon. Gentleman has raised this afternoon.
The right hon. Gentleman asks whether we have we taken steps over 18 months to secure the royal family. Yes, we have. At every royal palace, major work has been and continues to be undertaken, including at Windsor castle. When the report comes out, the steps taken, the technology available and the surveillance already in place will be spelt out, along with the detailed investigation of the failures. [Interruption.] The shadow Leader of the House rightly, almost perceptively, says from a sedentary position that it did not work. Well, self-evidently, it did not work; otherwise, I would not be reporting to the House.
Self-evidently, no matter how busy I have been, I was not there on Saturday night to oversee the events, even though, as Prince Andrew said to me last night, I would have been very welcome. I was attending an event that the shadow Home Secretary also attended. However, if I had been very welcome—let us get this clear—I would not have been operationally responsible for what took place at Windsor, not just because it would not have been correct for me to do so, but because Opposition Members have been berating me for the past two years for taking any step to have any operational responsibility for police activity. They can only have it one way: either I am operationally responsible, or a security tsar would be; or the police are operationally responsible, so long as we as a Government have put in place the resources, the available support and the mechanisms to ensure that they do their job properly.
Let me deal with the final issue. If there had been a security tsar in the Cabinet and I had been sitting next to him while he made this statement, would it have changed the situation? Would it have avoided the event? Would we be more secure? Would it have helped or hindered to have taken out of the hands of the Home Secretary responsibility for the general issue, but not the responsibility to hold to account the operational special branch and policing mechanisms, including S014, which is responsible for royal security? Would it have made a difference if a separate person was answering those questions, or badgering me or the police about what they are doing separately from the duty that I would have to carry out in being in charge and accountable for MI5 and special branch? The answer is patently no. If someone else were trying to do my job for me separately, and answering for me separately while I sat next to him, the accountable lines of responsibility would be muddled. The police, including the commissioner, would not be clear to whom they were

871
accountable and the discussions this morning would inevitably have been with both of us and the report would have to come to both of us.
In the end, these are the questions that have to be answered: did we do our bit of the job correctly? Have other people done their jobs correctly? Whom do we hold to account for the failures? How do we learn the lessons? It does not matter what silly party politics are made of this; those are the questions. We will have the answers within a month and, if someone else energising himself by rushing around triple checking the arrangements put in place and ensuring that personal and systemic failures do not occur would make any difference, I would recommend to the Prime Minister that it be done, but we have either overall charge of the system, or operational responsibility. We cannot have both.
Simon Hughes: Happily, the uninvited guest at the castle on Saturday night was clearly social and self-promotional rather than antisocial and considerably worse, for which we are grateful. I am not going to ask the Home Secretary about civil defence, as it seems to me that that is a matter for another day. I have a couple of straightforward questions.
Can the Home Secretary confirm that the opportunity will be taken of the event on Saturday night to review the security of all the key institutions of state: the homes and offices of the key members of the royal family, the Parliaments and Governments of the United Kingdom, and the courts of the United Kingdom, all of which need to be secure and safe? Can he confirm that the one crucial thing that appears to have failed on Saturday night, and that clearly failed 20 years ago, is that the perimeter boundaries were not adequately policed, either in person or technologically? Surely that is easy to do technologically, which is the priority in all the key institutions to which I have referred. Lastly, to get the lines of accountability right—he is right to say that he does not have, as he should not have, direct accountability—when the royal family are outside London, who are in charge; is it the diplomatic and royal protection force of the Metropolitan police or the local territorial police? In cases such as this, which of those two takes responsibility or do they share it?
Mr. Blunkett: I am grateful for the way in which the hon. Gentleman has posed his questions. On the latter point, the local force has responsibility outside the perimeter. That is very clear, and that was the case with Thames Valley police outside the perimeter of Windsor castle. The Metropolitan police royal protection branch has responsibility inside the grounds, in conjunction with the royal family and their staff. It is important to bear in mind that we are talking about a family and decisions taken by them in relation to the level of surveillance and the avoidance of intrusion, particularly when there are invited guests and it is a family event. People have spoken in the past 48 hours as if the royal family should have no say in this and should have expected a degree of intrusion, which would have been unacceptable to them.
872
On the two other questions raised by the hon. Gentleman, it is absolutely imperative that we have the proper level of security elsewhere, and Members are aware that we have been doing that both at No. 10 Downing street and around the Palace of Westminster over recent months. It is critical that we learn the lessons. I ought to make it clear to the House that there was and is electronic surveillance of the highest order. There is a suggestion, as there was a moment or two ago, that some of us are so busy that we do not have a clue about what is going on or about the necessary use of technology or surveillance. We are talking about whether that technology was used effectively, whether the indications from it were picked up, and whether they were acted on. That is why this important detailed review by Commander Armstrong will have to deliver to us not just the answers to the immediate questions but the way forward in making sure that the failures do not happen again.
Mr. Gordon Prentice: We are all relieved that nothing terrible happened at Windsor. What is the cost, however, of policing these royal events? We are not talking about any old royal event, but a fancy dress party. If football clubs in north-east Lancashire or agricultural shows in my constituency are charged for the cost of policing such events, is it not right that the royal family or invited guests to royal fancy dress dos reimburse the police for the extra cost of this additional security?
Mr. Blunkett: Arrangements are in place to deal with what falls as a private cost and what falls to the public purse in terms of security for those in the public eye. What I say to my hon. Friend is that we must have a sense of proportion. It is nice for a young man to have a 21st birthday party and to be able to do so in safety.
Mr. Andrew Mackay: While this was clearly a serious incident with potentially disastrous consequences, I put it to the Home Secretary that my constituents who live near Windsor, who have a great affection for the royal family, have always enjoyed a close informality, as was seen last week with the Garter parade, which has ensured a close relationship between the local population and the royal family. While probably introducing new security measures, I urge him not to do so in a way that means that the royal family and the public do not have close contact. If that happens, as with Members of Parliament at Westminster, the terrorists win.
Mr. Blunkett: It is precisely because of the wish of the royal family to maintain that informality, for the reasons that have just been enunciated, that the lighter-touch approach was agreed. Because in this country we have an agreement with the individual rather than one imposed by the security forces, as happens elsewhere, including across the Atlantic, there is a choice for those of us who have security, including the royal family, in relation to the level and intensity of that security. Many choose to ensure that they can continue living something of a life. That is a very important point. The events of Saturday night mean, inevitably, as there will rightly be a public demand for it, a tightening, but that must be with the agreement of the royal family, and it is at a cost to all of us in terms of the way that we live our lives.
Kate Hoey: In looking at measures to ensure that the security lapses on Saturday night do not happen again, will the Home Secretary assure the House and my constituents—who today are facing up to the fact that there is not a single ward officer in Lambeth, as they have all been sent up to guard President Putin—that in relation to any extra resources that go into security and terrorism, London boroughs that have many officers taken away on a day-to-day basis are given extra officers? There must be a balance to that, because if it is to go on for some time, it will affect the well-being of ordinary constituents who do not want their privacy invaded by burglaries.
Mr. Blunkett: As we have said on numerous occasions to my hon. Friend and others, that is precisely the reason why we have put £62 million extra into the Metropolitan police this year, that several hundred community support officers have been employed to ensure that displacement does not take place, and that we have ensured that the 200 officers who have been displaced, as I said at the last Home Office questions, do not disproportionately affect other boroughs. These are big issues, and all of us need to ensure that the displacement factor does not affect general policing.
Mr. Andrew Rosindell: Will the Home Secretary acknowledge the potential catastrophic consequences of what could have taken place last Saturday had the intruder been a suicide bomber rather than a comedian? Will he therefore ensure that a thorough and urgent review of security takes place in all royal palaces, not just Windsor castle, and including the Palace of Westminster?
Mr. Blunkett: Of course, the review of royal palaces has already taken place. The measures that I was mentioning a moment ago have already been put in place. The review by Commander Armstrong will deal with the failure to be able to use the measures already available and any lessons learned in terms of additional measures that might be required, including here. As was mentioned earlier, as hon. Members and bearing in mind the operation of the House, we must balance security for ourselves against the access that the public rightly demand and the availability and visibility of those whom they hold to account.
Mr. Brian Jenkins: My right hon. Friend will be fully aware that everyone in the country wishes him well in his duties, particularly with regard to security. I am delighted that he is so up to date with electronic information and the methods used in security today. He is certainly aware, however, that the report could show that there was no human error or failing, and that the system was just not knitted together well enough. That could happen on any occasion. Security is not just about putting extra bodies in place: it is about utilisation and the experience and training that those officers receive. When he reads the report, will he please take note of the fact that in this country we have a long tradition of civil liberties, and that more security could easily mean more repression? Will he ensure that we continue to enjoy our civil liberties and the quality of life that we have had for centuries?
Mr. Blunkett: That balance is absolutely crucial. I want to make it clear that I have already acknowledged,
874
as the Commissioner has acknowledged, that there was substantial failure and that it was not a simple matter of people not lining up the individual reaction with the technology. Those failures will be revealed. I have indicated that we will publish the report and do something about it, and then people will be aware of whether other changes will be needed consequent on that report.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: In a previous life I spent a great deal of time guarding Windsor castle, so I know its perimeter quite well. It is a huge tourist attraction, as well as a major building with a large perimeter, that is set in a beautiful home park that is also open to the public. The Home Secretary has already spoken about balance. Will he reaffirm the fact that we do not want to see our royal family behind rolls of razor wire? Given the serious lapse of security, will he confirm that the best weapon is the vigilance of the general public? That is partly a question of educating the general public that some clown in a dress is not just a gatecrasher and could, in fact, be a serious threat to the royal family and, indeed, our whole democracy.
Mr. Blunkett: I think we have already acknowledged that. In the final analysis of Saturday night, apart from the failures that we have indicated existed, the difficulty was that it was a fancy-dress party. That is a lesson if ever there was one.
David Taylor: The last decade has seen a continued expansion of the role and responsibilities of private security firms. Will the inquiry that the Home Secretary announced examine in particular the way in which they carried out their duties, which are often considered to be down to a price, not up to a standard? Will he be able to tell the nation that no obsession with out-sourcing has imperilled the security of the royal family?
Mr. Blunkett: I can absolutely give an assurance on that because there was not a failure by private security companies. Contractors dealing with power and other provisions were involved, which are entirely different from companies responsible for security.
Mr. Keith Simpson: The Home Secretary outlined a serious security breach but, at the same time, the situation was almost like comic opera or something from the Ali G show. He outlined the operational responsibilities of the Metropolitan police, but will he tell the House his exact responsibility as Home Secretary? He gave the impression that it was rather an administrative responsibility relating to the allocation of resources.
Mr. Blunkett: I did not suggest that there was an administrative failure. There was a clear failure on the ground of people doing the job expected, as I am sure the review will conclude. However, it will do so by taking account of highly complicated issues such as the role of individuals, the use of technology and communications that took place on the night. There will be an important learning curve.
The Home Secretary's role is to ensure that resources are available and that the right questions are asked prior to the installation of further security and surveillance

875
measures at the royal palaces. Any failure at a political level will be reported in the review and I shall happily take the rap for anything for which I can duly be expected to carry responsibility, bearing in mind the case that previous Home Secretaries were directly responsible for the Metropolitan police, which has not been the case for the past six years.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: Does the right hon. Gentleman understand my concern about suggestions in the press that heads must roll over the incident? Does he agree that officers should be required to resign only if it can be said sensibly that they were personally guilty of real culpability or default, and that simply seeking a scalp would be wholly inappropriate and unjust?
Mr. Blunkett: I made it clear that there should be no scapegoats and I said to Sir John Stevens this morning that it was very important that no one—especially at a lowly level—should lose their job because of wider failures to do and manage the job better higher up the hierarchy.
Gregory Barker: In light of this seriously embarrassing failure, has the Home Secretary reviewed the security arrangements for President Putin's visit to this country this week? Furthermore, what impact does he expect the breach of security at Windsor castle to have on the proposed visit by President Bush later in the year? Does he expect the Americans to revisit their plans for the President to stay at the castle in the light of the Home Secretary's inability to provide adequate security?
Mr. Blunkett: I have discussed the Putin visit this week with David Veness—some of us obviously have a personal interest in the security this afternoon because we will be at the event. Despite the pressures on me, I am entirely on board with this. I promise that if there is a fancy-dress ball when President Bush is at Windsor, we shall take every step to avoid anyone kissing him.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: The Home Secretary has alluded to this point, but surely one of the extra challenges facing the police and royal protection officers on the night was the large number of extra contractors, caterers, waiters and waitresses who were employed in the place of existing household staff. Does he agree that one of the lessons to be learned is that, whenever possible, royal household staff rather than outside contractors should be used to carry out such functions?
Mr. Blunkett: The answer is yes, but it is entirely a matter for the royal household. I said earlier that unlike other countries we do not impose activities on individuals—including members of the royal family—that they are not prepared to accept even in the interests of security. We have to negotiate such matters on all occasions. The same is true when people are used for other contracted arrangements for such parties.

Genetics
1.5 pm
The Secretary of State for Health (Dr. John Reid): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement about the White Paper on genetics and health care that we are publishing today. The paper, "Our Inheritance, Our Future—Realising the potential of genetics in the NHS", is available from the Vote Office.
Today's White Paper could not be published at a more appropriate time. This year marks the 50th anniversary of the publication by Francis Crick and James Watson of the structure of DNA. I begin by paying tribute to their work. DNA is the molecule of life from which our genes are made. The discovery of its double-helix structure set the stage for 50 years of world-changing genetic advances. It has allowed scientists to decode the human genome and to identify and sequence all the 30,000 or so genes that each of us carry in every cell of our body. This gigantic task was completed earlier this year. The UK has played a leading role in this ambitious international project, with a third of the genome being mapped at the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute in Cambridge.
Increasing understanding of genetics will bring more accurate diagnosis; more personalised prediction of risk; new gene-based drugs and therapies; and better targeted prevention and treatment. In time we should be able to assess the risk that an individual has of developing the country's biggest killers—cancer and coronary heart disease—as well as diseases such as diabetes that limit people's lives. We will also learn more about how variations in our genes affect the way we respond to medicines. Further down the line, genetics will lead to the development of new therapies aimed not only at treating disease in novel ways but at preventing it.
Thus, genetics has the potential to bring immense benefits for patients. Above all, genetics promises a more personalised approach to health care with interventions tailored to each person's own genetic profile. This science, therefore, encourages us to develop the personalised NHS suitable for the 21st century that the Government are committed to creating. Our vision is for the NHS to lead the world in taking maximum advantage of the safe, effective and ethical application of the new genetic knowledge and technologies for all patients as soon as they become available. The vision calls for an integrated strategy that will support the generation of new knowledge and technologies, further develop centres of excellence in the NHS and facilitate the roll-out of genetics into all NHS services; and all within the context of a rigorous regulatory framework and greater public understanding and engagement. The White Paper sets out how that will be achieved.
I believe that no other health care system in the world is better placed to harness the potential of genetic advances than the national health service. The values on which the NHS is based—providing care for all free at the point of use on the basis of need, not the ability to pay—are uniquely suited to capturing the benefits of the genetics revolution. They provide a bulwark against the inequalities of private insurance-based health systems in which the prospect of a genetic super-class of the well and insurable and a genetic underclass of the unwell and uninsurable, unable to pay the premiums for medical care, is for many a very real threat.

877
Our NHS means that citizens in the UK can choose to take genetic tests free from the fear that should they test positive, they will face an enormous bill for treatment or insurance, or become priced out of care or cover altogether. Already in the United States of America, where 40 million people have no medical cover, developments in genetics have stirred precisely those concerns. As our understanding of genetics increases, the case for private health insurance as an alternative to the NHS weakens. Thus scientific advance increasingly underpins the moral values that have long lain at the heart of our national health service.
I am today announcing that over the next three years the Government will invest an additional £50 million in England in developing genetics knowledge, skills and provision within the NHS. The White Paper that we are publishing today sets out detailed plans of how that money will be spent. The first step is to boost the capacity of NHS genetics centres. We will spend £18 million on a major programme to upgrade genetics laboratories and will expand the specialist genetics work force with initiatives and investment to increase the number of laboratory scientists and genetics counsellors.
For patients to gain the maximum benefit from genetics, genetics knowledge and technologies will need to permeate the whole of the NHS. So we will spur the take-up of genetics by other specialties by spending more than £7 million to support new genetics initiatives in primary care and mainstream NHS services, such as cancer and coronary heart disease. We will set up a new genetics education and training centre that will work with the professional bodies to ensure that all NHS health care staff receive appropriate education and training in genetics.
The White Paper also sets out our intention to fund further research to help convert genetic discoveries into improved patient care. We will invest £4 million in pharmacogenetic research on existing medicines and set up a new chair and university department in pharmacogenetics.
The most common inheritable single-gene disorder in this country is cystic fibrosis. There are 7,500 children and young adults with this distressing condition in the UK. There is no cure and sufferers rarely survive beyond their 20s. Thus we will provide a further £2.5 million over the next five years to help find a gene therapy cure for cystic fibrosis. We will make available a further £3 million to support gene therapy research on other single-gene disorders and an additional £4 million on gene therapy production facilities for NHS and other public sector researchers. But realising the maximum health benefits of genetics will require more than just support and investment in NHS services and research. It can only be achieved if breakthroughs by the scientific community are matched by public support and understanding in the wider community.
Against a background of great promise, we recognise that genetic advances bring very real ethical and social concerns. We are committed to providing positive safeguards to address those concerns. We have in place an integrated and robust system of regulation. We have already taken action by introducing a moratorium on the use of genetic test results by insurance companies and we have passed legislation to ban human
878
reproductive cloning—one of the few countries in the world to have done so and the first to introduce specific legislation to that end.
Above all, the Government are committed to ensuring openness and transparency in genetic policy making. In 1999 we set up the Human Genetics Commission, which last year produced a major report on the use of personal genetic information. It identified the growing danger of DNA theft whereby sensitive information about a person could be gained by stealing their DNA from, for example, discarded hair, which is then tested without their knowledge or consent. The commission recommended that that should be illegal. I am able to announce that the Government have accepted that recommendation. We will introduce legislation to make it an offence to test a person's DNA without their consent. The new offence will apply in all circumstances except as part of a person's medical treatment where consent is impossible to obtain or the lawful use by the police and courts.
A core ethical principle in the HGC's report is that no one should be unfairly discriminated against on the basis of their genetic characteristics. The Government wholeheartedly endorse that principle. We accept the HGC's recommendation to review the evidence and to consider the appropriate means of addressing concerns in this area. Thus by accepting the two key recommendations of the Human Genetics Commission, I hope that I have demonstrated the Government's willingness to engage in a genuine dialogue on genetics issues. We need not fear genetic advances if we debate the issues openly and put in place the proper public protections today.
We are standing on the threshold of a revolution in health care. By working together, by building on our strengths, by making the necessary investment and careful preparation now, I believe that genetics can deliver real and lasting benefits in health and health care for all of us and everyone in this country. I commend the White Paper to the House.
Dr. Liam Fox: I welcome the Secretary of State to his position and wholeheartedly wish him the health to enjoy his job, which I think all hon. Members would agree is one of the most difficult in the Government. I also thank him for making the statement available in record early time. That is most welcome.
Conservative Members welcome the White Paper and its contents and look forward to the proposals appearing in legislation. I welcome the expansion of genetic services having done some of my medical training at the Du Pont genetic centre in Wilmington, Delaware and look forward to the time when our facilities are up to that standard. It is also worth pointing out that genomic solutions are not necessarily expensive. In fact, if properly applied they may lead us to make better use of the resources that we have.
We welcome the proposals to deal with DNA theft and the need to maintain public confidence. We support the Government's view of the need to avoid discrimination against people on the basis of genetic characteristics and will examine detailed proposals for legislation constructively. We will, of course, support any increased research into cystic fibrosis.

879
However, in welcoming the White Paper as a whole, there are a number of caveats. We must not over-hype what genetics can do, especially in the short and medium terms. The technologies are emerging and are at an early stage. The full potential is not yet known. The mapping of the human genome does not mean that we know the function of all genes. The Secretary of State mentioned the ability to prevent disease. That will always be relative. He will be well aware of the equation of phenotype equals genotype plus environment. Environmental factors will always be an important aspect in illness, which will not simply be based on genetics.
Very few single genes can, or will ever, be identified that will predict with certainty that an individual will inevitably develop a specific condition. The majority, of single-gene defects, if not all, had been identified clinically—for example, haemophilia or sickle cell anaemia—long before gene mapping. Information obtained for research purposes must not be available for forensic, legal or any other purpose not related to that research, or we will find it difficult to maintain a research base in this country.
The Secretary of State rightly said that the genetic revolution would be of maximum benefit when free care for all was provided at the point of need, irrespective of income. However, it is wrong to portray the national health service and an American-style insurance system as alternatives. I am sure that Germany and Switzerland, with their social insurance systems, will be just as able as the United Kingdom—if not better able—to take advantage of the genetic revolution. To portray those options as alternatives is intellectually flawed, politically dishonest and deeply insulting to European countries with well-developed health systems.
There is a problem with the Secretary of State's analysis of insurance. He may be right that the case for private insurance would diminish, but some factors will increase in importance. For some individuals, the exclusion of certain risks may make them more attractive to insurers. The Government have imposed a moratorium, but offshore and online services are almost impossible to regulate, so they need to give more thought to that.
I should like the Secretary of State to deal with four specific questions. First, what is the Government's view about the extent to which intellectual property protection for gene-based inventions will play a role in stimulating the development of new health care products? Secondly, what are the Government's plans to extend counselling services, education and training as their programme develops and in what time scale? Thirdly, in pharmacogenetics, where doctors may be able to select individuals for particular drug use or avoidance, what changes do the Government think may be required in the legislation relating to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence? Finally, the Secretary of State said that the new offence of theft of DNA will apply in all circumstances, except as part of someone's medical treatment when consent is impossible to obtain.
880
What legal advice has he received in relation to people held under the Mental Health Acts who are not able to give consent in the normal way?
Dr. Reid: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his double whammy of congratulations on the early dispatch of the statement and my arrival at the Dispatch Box in my new capacity. In that context, I will attempt to make statements available early as far as possible in circumstances which, as he will accept, are sometimes pressurised, so that the Opposition have due time to consider the issues. I do not think that they should be matters of party political debate, although some of the consequences, which the hon. Gentleman raised, lead us into the arena of legitimate choices about the nature of our health system. May I also say that I was encouraged to present the statement early following your strictures on a previous occasion, Mr. Speaker, when I was in a different position?
I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman, who brings to these matters a great deal of experience from his personal background and studies, that we must not over-hype the prospects and impact of the revolution in health care created by genetics. We should recognise the advances that can be achieved in diagnosis, treatment and, in some cases, potential cures. However, we must strike a balance between the euphoria that comes with new inventions and the magic wand fantasy that is sometimes created by commentators on the one hand, and the deep suspicion, lapsing into prejudice, of anything that involves scientific advance on the other. The hon. Gentleman is right about that.
As for intellectual property rights and patents in general, we all understand that they do not entail the ownership of a particular gene or gene sequence. They protect research into a particular application of a gene or gene sequence, and those intellectual property rights and, indeed, patents are necessary to encourage people to invest in a number of different areas. We recognise that but, of course, we must make sure that such rights do not inhibit the NHS from offering the applications that they want to offer the people of this country. For instance, we have been asked about testing people for a disposition to breast or ovarian cancer, and the implications for companies that may be carrying out research in that field. We will not be blackmailed in any way or pushed into stopping women who may be predisposed to certain forms of breast or ovarian cancer from taking the necessary tests, because we believe that we have a moral, legal and political responsibility to offer that application.
The hon. Gentleman raised the issue of counsellors. We need not just the physical investment of money and premises and the bringing together of technical knowledge but people, whether geneticists, genetic counsellors or others. We have made provision in the White Paper issued today for sufficient money to increase the number of genetic counsellors, and we intend that that should be a building block for the future. I agree with the hon. Gentleman about that.
On the point that the hon. Gentleman made about mental health patients, I should be obliged, given the short time for which I have been in post, if he allowed me to write to him about our legal advice on mental health patients. Obviously, there are some circumstances under which it is not possible to obtain permission—for

881
example, from victims of a road accident or people who are comatose or unconscious—but for the benefit of the victim of the accident or the patient, it may be necessary for identification or the purposes of administration of medical assistance, to take a sample for DNA testing without consent. However, on the specific issue of mental health patients, I should like to write to the hon. Gentleman.
Finally, on the larger point made by the hon. Gentleman, there is a debate to be had on the implications for the nature of health care provision in this country of the potential predictability of an individual's health. I have already expressed my own view in the statement. It is undoubtedly true that there will be some individuals, as the hon. Gentleman said, who, because of genetic discoveries, treatment and potential cures, will be much better off under private health insurance than they otherwise would. That is surely the point—there will be some individuals who, because of the predictability of their future good health, will be much better placed in a sort of super-class, and there will be many individuals who, because they are predicted to suffer from bad health, will find it very difficult, if not impossible, to get private insurance or health cover. My own view is that recognition of that, together with changing circumstances, reinforces rather than detracts from the moral case for the national health service by underpinning it with scientific advance. I have no doubt at all about that. Time will tell whether our system will stand those tests better than the social insurance or private insurance systems elsewhere. However, I personally have no doubt not only that the NHS is as relevant as ever, but that with every passing year of medical discovery it is becoming more relevant to the people of this country.
Dr. Evan Harris: May I, too, welcome the Secretary of State to his post, as well as thanking him for early sight of the statement and the accompanying White Paper? I should also like to congratulate the Government on the establishment of the Human Genetics Commission, which has already done valuable work in promoting public debate and consultation. It is also timely to take the opportunity to congratulate those involved in the human genome project, particularly from this country, and recognise the work of those involved in the discovery of DNA. I extend the Secretary of State's recognition of Crick and Watson to include the contribution of Rosalind Franklin, because far too often, history, including science history, is written by men.
The Secretary of State said that the new genetics will lead to the prospect of four new things. First, with reference to more accurate diagnosis, the current legislation surrounding pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, requires lengthy court cases and appeals—for example, in the case of the Hashmis—or requires people like the Whitakers to go abroad in order to have the prospect of saving the life of a sibling. Is the Secretary of State satisfied that the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 is sufficient to meet the challenges 14 years on? Will he consider introducing new legislation to bring that Act, which has stood the test of time reasonably well, completely up to date?
882
The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the prospect of more personalised prediction of risk. Does he recognise the concern that exists about home testing genetic machines, and the prospect of vulnerable consumers being provided with information outside the context of advice that they require? The BBC suggested this morning that
"Dr. Reid is likely to counter-balance this"—
that is, the greater use of genetic testing—
"by pledging new safeguards to minimise the risk of discrimination against people whose test result make for bad news",
and that the White Paper was likely to
"place restrictions on the sale of over-the-counter testing kits for inherited conditions."
That is not dealt with in the White Paper or in the right hon. Gentleman's statement, and I should be grateful if he would clarify his intentions.
The Secretary of State spoke of the prospect of new gene-based therapies. That is an exciting prospect. I am a volunteer in a trial of a DNA vaccine for HIV. Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the prospect of such therapies being available in the developing world is much more limited, and that the Government need a policy to ensure that the benefits are available to deal with disease in the developing world? Concentration on such work must not detract from work on diseases that do not require genetic treatment or diagnosis and affect the poorest in the world.
The prospect of targeted prevention and treatment was mentioned. Can the Secretary of State reassure us that the new patient contract proposed by his party will not oblige patients to undergo genetic tests in order to register with a GP or to continue to get treatment from a GP?
We welcome the proposal to legislate to tackle DNA theft. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman's analysis of the inequity of insurance-based health care, but does he accept that other forms of insurance, the denial of which can drastically affect one's ability to go about one's business, is a real problem? Does he accept that the voluntary moratorium is insufficient? Can he not use the Bill that he proposes as an opportunity to legislate to prevent insurers requiring genetic tests before providing cover?
We welcome efforts for new gene therapies for diseases such as cystic fibrosis, but does the Secretary of State recognise that our transplantation laws are inadequate? Many people who could be cured by transplantation are urging the Government to update those laws to enable the maximum possible use, with consent, of available organs.
Finally, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that public education is important, particularly as the genetic field is the area where science often faces most strongly the forces of anti-science? In that context, does he accept that language is important, and that referring, as the White Paper does, to screening babies at birth, instead of using terms such as "high-risk identification", is not helpful in the debate, as it leads people to misunderstand the true potential and power of those tests? We need to keep the public on board. The White Paper is a good start, but I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept that there is still more to be done.
Dr. Reid: I accept that there is a lot more to be done, not least because the pace of change in genetics, as in many modern scientific advances, is on an exponential curve. We must constantly examine not only the medical, but the legal, political and ethical issues raised, and those are not small issues.
The hon. Gentleman asked a large number of questions. I shall try to answer them all, without impinging upon the indulgence of the Chair. If I miss any, I hope that I can write to the hon. Gentleman. He asked whether we intended to provide information for patients and the public on genetics. Yes, we certainly do, and we have made the finance available for that. NHS Direct has a role in that, and there are other ways of providing information.
Of course, we will not allow ourselves to be consumed only with genetic health issues, interesting though the knowledge and associated technologies are. The hon. Gentleman is right to point out that in many parts of the world and in the World Health Organisation's programmes, the more conventional approaches are extremely important. We will continue to support those as part of our overseas aid and in other ways.
We do not envisage any compulsion on patients. If the hon. Gentleman reads the White Paper, he will see that we stand against anyone being tested against their will, surreptitiously or otherwise. On the moratorium on insurance companies, the hon. Gentleman may know that there are three years to run on the existing moratorium. There will be further discussions on that. It is a tricky issue, taking into account the rights of the individuals, the companies and everyone else involved. We have made plain our view, and we will try to see that the matter can be satisfactorily resolved in the three years remaining.
The hon. Gentleman asked about changes that may be necessary in the legislation. The Government are committed to ensuring that the key legislation, such as the 1990 Act, is up to date with new developments, and we will ask the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority to keep these matters under review and to make any recommendations that it considers necessary. The HFEA is charged with that in the White Paper.
On legislation to ban genetic discrimination, the Human Genetics Commission considered the matter in its report on personal genetic data. The Government agree with its conclusion that there is no systematic use of genetic information by employers, and that there is little evidence of unfair genetic discrimination. Nevertheless, in light of what I said about the moratorium and the use of genetic tests by insurers, we need to build on that. I announced today in the White Paper that we accept the HGC's recommendation that we consider the evidence for genetic discrimination in employment, insurance, education and other areas and consider what steps to take in the light of that review.
Finally, like the hon. Gentleman, I extend my tribute to the scientists and members of organisations such as the HGC, whom I met this morning in my first public official duty, and a pleasant one it was to discuss some of these issues. I can tell the House that in 35 minutes I heard more contributions of a substantial nature from more people than I have ever heard in my discussions in politics. There were some pretty weighty contributions, and I and others can take a lesson in how to put our case
884
briskly. Not only did I pass on our congratulations and thanks to them, but yesterday I saw in action the comfort that the revolutionary new genetics knowledge and technology can bring to so many families, when I visited the Great Ormond Street hospital. I saw there families who were afflicted by a gene disorder, FH—familial hypercholesterolaemia. There are some 100,000 people in this country who may have that and who could be helped by advances in genetics, as they are being helped at Great Ormond Street. I have no hesitation in agreeing with the hon. Gentleman that we all owe a tribute to the doctors and scientists who have been involved in that.
Jim Dowd: I warmly welcome the statement and the publication of the White Paper by my right hon. Friend. I particularly welcome his remarks about cystic fibrosis and research into other gene-based therapies. He will know that current research indicates that a cure is within reach, at a relatively small cost. Will he undertake to meet representatives of the Cystic Fibrosis Trust, who have done so much to encourage research in this area over recent years, to try to find a course for an early end to that terrible disease?
Dr. Reid: As my hon. Friend said, gene therapy is a new and innovative form of medical treatment which holds great promise, although we are all agreed that we must not over-hype the possibilities or fail to recognise the real assistance that can be given, medically and socially, to many families who have been in terrible distress. Today I have allocated additional funds for the treatment of cystic fibrosis, and I shall be only too pleased to meet representatives of those who, for many years, have borne the burden of the disease in their families and who, I hope, will take some relief and delight today from the fact that the Government are putting even more resources into treating and curing that disease.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: I welcome what the Secretary of State said about cystic fibrosis—many of my constituents and others in Norfolk will be very pleased about his comments—and his remarks about the ethical framework. However, I should like to pick up on his comment that, as our understanding of genetics increases, the case for private health insurance as an alternative to the NHS weakens. Surely, one of the current flaws in the NHS is its risk-averse culture and the huge budgetary restraints that often lead to rationing of drugs. For example, the other day, I met a group of constituents dealing with motor neurone disease, and they were very concerned about the rationing of a key drug. Surely the way forward, to maximise the benefits of genetics, is a public-private partnership.
Dr. Reid: I would not want the hon. Gentleman to think for one moment that I do not appreciate or encourage the private sector's becoming involved in the development of treatments, cures and so on. In assisting us in bringing health care to the people of this country free at the point of need, the private sector plays a great role through private finance, public-private partnerships and so on. I have no hesitation in saying that; it applies outside and inside the field of genetics.

885
I was making a rather different point. If we look away from who provides the service to the patients—I believe that the national health service should be a patient-centred health system—we can see that, from the patients' point of view, the predictability of health brings with it a danger of predicting that one's health will be much worse than average in future. Such a prediction will place people at a severe disadvantage in a system that depends in any way on private insurance. Inevitably, away from the average, we will create those whom I called a super-healthy class, and perhaps a super-underclass. It is only through an a priori agreement by everyone in this country that, irrespective of what is predicted for somebody, they will be provided with health care free at the point of need, that we can have not only a moral system, but one that is underpinned by scientific predictive advances. That is the point that I was making.
Mr. Jim Cousins: I congratulate the Secretary of State on his statement. I should like to pick up directly on the last very important point that he made in his previous reply. I am sure that he will be aware of the work of Professor Norman Burn and the team in Newcastle who have identified a gene that greatly increases the disposition to and risk of bowel cancer. He will also be aware that participating in a bowel cancer screening programme, undergoing a colonoscopy or, further down the line of risk, having a non-cancerous growth removed from the colon or bowel can at present be declarable conditions for insurance purposes which can trigger additional costs not only in health insurance, but in travel insurance, mortgage protection and a range of life insurances. Will he address that point and prevent the danger that he set out in his previous reply from arising?
Dr. Reid: I am aware of the work to which my hon. Friend referred. Indeed, I spoke to some of those involved in it this morning at a breakfast seminar. On the specific point that he raised, I was making a general point about the national health service, but he made it with regard to a specific case and in relation to health insurance and other types of insurance. We have said that we have created a position in which it is not possible for insurers to insist that someone reveal the result of a genetic test. That is the position that has been agreed during the last period, in which there has been a moratorium. It will continue for three more years. During that period, it is our intention to try to arrive at a position not far removed from what he was suggesting, but we have to try to do that in a rather tricky world in which the rights of insurance companies and the way in which they function must be recognised, as well as the rights of individuals.
We recognise that insurance companies have to evaluate risk and take into account evidence and statistics when doing so. At the same time, we want to avoid a position in which, as a result of genetic predictability, any individual cannot get insurance. Some tricky issues are involved. It is fair to say that, thus far, there has been good will on all sides, and I hope that that will continue. It will certainly do so for three years, which will give us time to reach some form of accommodation that will be suitable for all sides.
Mr. Paul Goodman: The Secretary of State seems to be saying that the genetic super-
886
underclass—a phrase that I think he used a moment ago—is safe and secure only in a system that is free at the point of use. If that is so, can he explain what perils that group faces in countries that have social insurance systems? If the answer is that such people do not face substantial perils in those systems, why is he so certain that we have nothing to learn from our European neighbours, who run systems of precisely that kind?
Dr. Reid: Heavens! I would never suggest that I have nothing to learn from anyone—even Opposition Members. We can all learn; part of the virtue of this House is that, through dialogue, we occasionally learn. I was saying not that other systems could not provide adequate health care, but that as the predictability of an individual's health becomes verifiably ascertainable for the future, a system that is based on an a priori agreement that people will be treated irrespective of that information is much more likely to be able to cope with the social tensions caused by predictability and division.
I have always believed that the moral case for a national health service in respect of which we all agree that everyone will get health care that is free at the point of need is overwhelming. I also happen to have good reason to value that service, as it saved my life when I was a young man. I believe that the increasing predictability that comes with the extension of genetics is giving that a further scientific underpinning, because if we do not have a service that is based on an a priori agreement that we will be covered by a national insurance policy whatever life may hold for us and may be predicted to hold for us, it will become much more difficult for there to be a cohesive society, as some people will find it difficult, if not impossible, to get insurance.
Laura Moffatt: Today's announcement has brought very sharply into focus the benefits—as if Labour Members needed to be told—of a universal health service that is free at the point of use, including for the families that are suffering from the genetic conditions that cause so much distress. Does my right hon. Friend accept that we need not only to get to the representative groups that rightly campaign on these issues, but to ensure that consultation with families is understandable and is conducted in language that they know how to use? Does he accept that we must also use Members of the House to assist in consultation in respect of the White Paper and to bring back to the House the issues that those families want to raise with the Government in a way that we know is productive and inclusive?
Dr. Reid: Certainly, as my hon. Friend said, we should always seek to secure more patient involvement. That is part of the general posture that I shall attempt to adopt in trying to make the patient the centre of our attention, to decentralise decision making so far as I can in respect of national standards and comprehensive provision, and to involve patients in the design of the system, which is there to serve them and not us or anyone else.
My hon. Friend again makes the point about the consequences of increasingly being able to predict someone's health care—although, as the hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) said, we are some way off being able to do that with great authority for everyone. If health care finance is based on private insurance, any

887
insurance company will tend to use the results of genetic testing to predict and to limit its risk. If the test predicts the likelihood of disease, the insurance premiums will be very high—for most people, unaffordable. That is self-evident in the long run. Consequently, private medical insurance will tend to cover only those people without genetically predisposed risks and fail to cover the rest. I did not make that the central point of our discussion, but if hon. Members wish to contest it I am willing to argue the case on the ground of the national health service.
Sandra Gidley: The commitment to developing gene-based therapies is welcome. Can the Secretary of State confirm whether such therapies will be subject to appraisal by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence? If so, will he concede that NICE has often delayed the implementation of a therapy and, given its very heavy forward workload, what will he do to ease the situation?
Dr. Reid: In my short spell at the Dispatch Box in this job, I have not come across the issue of delays in NICE, but I shall look into it and write to the hon. Lady, if I may.
Sandra Gidley: What about genetic therapies?
Dr. Reid: I shall write to the hon. Lady about that.
Dr. Ian Gibson: In five or 10 years' time, this document will have made a significant difference to the lives and health of people not only in this country, but in developing countries. I am tempted to put forward the names of my right hon. Friend and his predecessor for a Nobel prize, because this contribution will be as world shattering as that of Watson, Crick and the others. It wall empower people to ask about their predispositions, which will enable them to make decisions about their diet and lifestyle—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should not be making a statement, but asking a question. Can he make it short?
Dr. Gibson: Would my right hon. Friend agree that the new emphasis on prevention represents a radical shift in our national health service that we all welcome?
Dr. Reid: The answer to my hon. Friend is yes on every count, with one exception. Modesty forbids my being put forward, even by my hon. Friend, for the Nobel prize, although that will be a great source of envy to all my colleagues in Government, not all of whom have been suggested by him as contenders for a prize of any sort.
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. One of the great benefits of the path that we have followed on genetics is the information that will allow us to rely on prevention to a far greater measure and with greater success than previously.
Mr. Mark Francois: I welcome what the Secretary of State said about cystic fibrosis, because that is important information for those of my constituents who suffer from that disease.
888
In a more partisan spirit, may I challenge his point about insurance? He sought to argue that genetics will have an implication for people with some form of health insurance, but—as my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman) noted—in a social insurance model that risk is, by definition, spread over a considerable number of people. That obviates the Secretary of State's point about increasing the price of insurance for individuals.
Dir. Reid: I have nothing against insurance of any nature. I am probably the only man in the House who is an associate of the Chartered Insurance Institute.
Mr. Barry Gardiner indicated dissent.
Dr. Reid: We commandeer almost every field of learning on this side of the House.
In the face of the increasing predictability of individuals' health—we are not there yet, but it will come—any civilised society can base its health care only on an a priori agreement that we will all pay for it through general taxation and will all benefit from it, irrespective of any evidence about our own futures. That is a decision that was taken many years ago—chiefly a political and moral decision, although not exclusively, because it was taken on the basis of experience, too. The underlying political and moral values of the national health service have increasingly been underpinned by scientific discovery and practical reality.
Andy Burnham: I add my welcome to the White Paper, which charts the right course through a difficult area. I, too, particularly welcome the focus on cystic fibrosis. As my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Jim Dowd) said, there is a realistic chance of a cure, but we do not know how long it will take for the research programme to make the all-important breakthrough. With that in mind, now that we have embarked on the course of trying to find a cure, can we stick with it and work with the Cystic Fibrosis Trust to get the result that we all want?
Dr. Reid: Indeed. I know that my hon. Friend plays a valuable role on the Select Committee on Health. Today, I agreed to meet representatives of the Cystic Fibrosis Trust to discuss the matter further with my hon. Friend and any other Members who are interested in it. We are putting millions of pounds into that field, as well as considerable financial resources into others. After today, there will be an extra £50 million—a major programme of investment—to upgrade the NHS genetic testing laboratories; to bring in additional counsellors; to pilot schemes, not only on cystic fibrosis, but on familial hypercholesterolaemia and other areas; and to bring awareness of and education in the benefits of genetics to the NHS in general. I would not claim that today is as major an event as my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) suggested, but it is a not insignificant White Paper and not an insignificant day.
Mr. David Cameron: Will the Secretary of State take it from me, as the relatively recent father of a child with severe epilepsy, cerebral palsy and

889
developmental delay, and as someone who has had genetic counselling in the past month, that the statement and the Government's approach will be warmly welcomed by many families with disabled children? Does he recognise that parents of disabled children are often told that their child's condition is idiopathic or cryptogenic, which actually means that no one has a clue as to its cause? Is it not the case that genetic research provides the best chance of getting to the bottom of such issues and giving families hope for the future? Could he clarify how much of the new resources will go into research into disability in general and into epilepsy in particular?
Dr. Reid: I can add little to the hon. Gentleman's remarks. No one bears better testimony to the potential and actual benefits of what we discussing than those who are directly involved, or in families who are involved, in coping with such difficulties and stresses. His eloquence speaks for all those families who can see, if not immediate relief, at least the possibility of some relief in future. I am delighted that he, along with many others, will benefit immediately or may benefit somewhere down the line.
We are putting some £7 million into new initiatives to get genetics-based health care into primary care, and we are putting money into the two pilots that I mentioned. Among a range of other initiatives, we have pilots in six cancer network areas and we are piloting on heart disease too. I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's specific question off the top of my head, but I shall write to him to clarify not only the finances, but the range of support that we are giving to the development of this very important area.
Dr. Doug Naysmith: I welcome my right hon. Friend to the Dispatch Box in his capacity as Secretary of State for Health. I particularly welcome his strong endorsement of the principles of the national health service and his commitment to them. He mentioned Francis Crick. Of course, that was a wonderful achievement for British science, which still underlies all that we do now. However, genetics began in a previous century with a monk called Gregor Mendel, who separated rounded peas from smooth peas. Ever since his work became known, this has been a controversial subject in science—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman has a question now.
Dr. Naysmith: Will my right hon. Friend explain how he intends to ensure that the ethical and scientific aspects of this science are kept apart, as he applies them to medical treatment in the national health service?
Dr. Reid: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am sure that you were quite right to interrupt what I have to admit to having found a fascinating exposition of the genetic equivalent of Newton's apple, which appeared to involve mushy peas, if I understood my hon. Friend correctly. I will get the end of the story from him later.
890
On the serious point that my hon. Friend raised, of course we recognise that genetic advances bring very real ethical and social concerns. There is a difficult balance to be struck here. He mentioned the history of these matters. All scientific work has resulted in society having to develop an ethical framework in which to consider scientific advances. The advances are now being made at such a rate that it is often difficult for us to develop an ethical framework to cope with them at the same time. We have already taken action, however, by introducing the moratorium on some of the practical implications that will flow from these advances. We are one of the few countries in the world to have passed legislation to ban reproductive cloning, and, above all, we are committed to ensuring openness and transparency in the debate on genetic policy making. We need to have a debate; we should not take anything for granted. This is not a scientific advance that we can just apply without considering its ethical consequences. This is the place for that debate, and it should be open and inclusive. I am sure that, at the end of the day, the debate on the ethics of these issues will not come down to any easily defined party positions.
Bob Russell: May I make what is for me a somewhat rare observation by warmly welcoming the statement from the Government today? I would like to draw the attention of the Secretary of State to early-day motion 1, which has so far been signed by more than 150 Members across the House, and which relates to those adult sufferers of cystic fibrosis who still have to pay prescription charges. Bearing in mind the fact that the Cystic Fibrosis Trust believes that the sum involved in relieving those sufferers from paying prescription charges would be about £100,000 a year, will the Secretary of State consider such a move as a serious option? I am not asking for anything revolutionary—merely the implementation of what was in Labour's 1997 general election manifesto.
Dr. Reid: First, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his introductory comments. Secondly, I cannot give him an answer today, but I will look at the point that he has raised.
Dr. Phyllis Starkey: Among the potential benefits of pharmacogenetics will be the more effective targeting of drugs towards patients on whom they will work—as opposed to patients on whom they will not—and the more effective targeting of preventive health advice. This will mean a profound rethinking of the way in which primary care works. I know that the Secretary of State has announced certain pilot projects in primary care, but will he also give some thought to how primary care trusts could be thinking now about the implications for the future planning of primary care services, to ensure that we get the full benefit of these scientific improvements as they are introduced?
Dr. Reid: I agree entirely with the thrust of both points that my hon. Friend raises. People tend to think that the only use for the latest discoveries in gene therapy is to identify a gene that can be mended, leading to a cure. In fact, the information and the accuracy of diagnosis now available—which can lead to treatment

891
modifications for those who can benefit most, or for those who might suffer side-effects, for example—is equally immense. We should not forget that.
On my hon. Friend's second point, this is not just a specialised form of study and application—although it is that. It also has the potential to revolutionise the whole of primary care. That is precisely why we have made provision in the White Papers not only for the scientific and physical matters under investigation, but for the wider educative process and for entrenching a knowledge of genetics and gene therapy within the mainstream of the NHS, and for educating a broad spread of those working in it about their benefits about the associated technology.
Mr. Tom Watson: Today's announcement will further enhance the UK's reputation as a world leader in genetic medical science. Is my right hon. Friend aware of the research teams in London, Oxford and Edinburgh that have already drawn up detailed research proposals in partnership with the Cystic Fibrosis Trust? When he meets representatives of the trust, will he consider its proposal that, for only £15 million over three years, the hopes and dreams of the 7,500 sufferers of cystic fibrosis in the UK could be realised?
Dr. Reid: I will look at that issue, but my hon. Friend will realise that I cannot make a decision on it today. There is an almost infinite demand for resources, and a huge well of human suffering and discomfort. We try, so far as we can, to allocate the resources in terms of priorities—using, if I may say so, the language of socialism, as Nye Bevan once said. He was not an Englishman either.
892
On my hon. Friend's serious point, we have announced today £2.5 million for cystic fibrosis, £3 million for other single-gene disorders, and £4 million to be spent providing the NHS and public sector researchers with access to high-quality genes. In all, we are providing £50 million to advance this programme. I am not suggesting that that is sufficient, but within the overall priorities and pressures that are put on the NHS budget—which treats 1 million people every 36 hours—this is an indication of how seriously we take the matter. I hope that it will offer some relief immediately, and some hope in the longer term to the many families who have suffered the stress, discomfort and pain of seeing a loved one suffer from cystic fibrosis.
Mrs. Anne Campbell: In welcoming my right hon. Friend's statement, may I ask him to pay particular attention to those individuals who choose not to know what their DNA is, or whether they might have a single-gene disorder for which there may, as yet, be no cure?
Dr. Reid: Yes, I shall pay attention to that matter. We must try to avail ourselves of the advantages in scientific advancement at the same time as avoiding compulsion. I hope that we will extend the range of our knowledge and the number of people involved in this programme, through the UK biobank. This is an ambitious flagship project, undertaking vital research; as I have pointed out today, it is the largest of its kind in the world. We also hope that the biobank will hold data from 500,000 volunteers, but that will be done on a voluntary basis. We will protect the information that is held, and, more generally, we are doing what we can to protect the privacy of those who wish to undertake genetic testing to satisfy themselves as to their own health. We would also wish to ensure that we were not involving ourselves in any element of compulsion in regard to the new scientific advances.

Road Safety
2.9 pm
Mr. Mark Lazarowicz: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide local traffic authorities with powers to develop urban safety hierarchies; to identify 20mph zones and home zones; to require the Secretary of State to issue guidance on the setting of speed limits; and for connected purposes.
My reason for proposing the Bill is that, notwithstanding the measures to improve road safety taken by the Government and many local authorities of different political colours, there are still too many people who die or are injured on our roads every year. The toll is particularly high among pedestrians and cyclists in urban areas, particularly child pedestrians. The Bill that I propose would encourage local authorities and the Government to take measures that I believe would result in a significant drop in the number of people killed and severely injured on the roads. It would do that by focusing on speed, as excessive speed is a major contributory factor to the death toll on our roads.
The aim of my Bill is to encourage local councils to adopt a comprehensive approach to managing speed on urban roads in their area, and in particular to encourage the wider introduction of 20 mph zones. I acknowledge that many local authorities have done a lot of good work to improve road safety in their area, not least in my own city of Edinburgh. However, if we look at the picture in the United Kingdom as a whole, there is still significant room for improvement. Indeed, the rate of death and serious injury to child pedestrians in Britain is one of the highest in the European Union.
The facts are clear: speed is a major cause of many of these deaths and injuries. At present, however, although local authority transport plans are required to take into account targets for casualty reductions, only one third of those plans contain a recognisable speed management strategy.
My Bill would encourage all local authorities to develop a strategy for speed management on roads in their area. It would introduce the concept of the urban safety hierarchy, in which local council roads in urban areas would be classified as one of three types: residential, distributor or access roads. Residential roads would automatically have a 20 mph speed limit; distributor roads, which are largely for through traffic, would retain the existing 30 mph limit; and speed limits on access roads that link residential with distributor roads would be either 20 or 30 mph, depending on their nature.
My Bill would give local authorities throughout the country the option of introducing a hierarchy approach; they would not be obliged to do so. That would enable forward-thinking councils to adopt a broader, strategic approach to speed management, which is denied to them by existing legislation.
My Bill could, and I hope would, bring about a much wider coverage of 20 mph zones in residential areas throughout the country. Although most Members will be familiar with 20 mph zones in many—probably most—local authority areas in the country, overall they cover only a very small percentage of residential roads in urban areas. Extending the coverage of 20 mph zones
894
would be one of the most effective ways of reducing the death and injury toll on urban roads. Research on existing zones has shown that in the year after their introduction, accidents resulting in injuries fell by an average of 61 per cent. and accidents resulting in injuries to children fell by 67 per cent.
My Bill would also require the Secretary of State to issue new guidance for local councils on the setting of limits on urban roads. That would replace the existing rules, which are largely inadequate because they are based on the speed at which vehicles travel at the moment, rather than the speed that is appropriate for a particular road.
Last but not least, my proposed Bill would encourage the growth of home zones by giving local councils the power to implement speed orders in such areas to provide for speeds of no higher than 10 mph. Currently, only 14 home zones are in operation in the UK, with another 61 in the pipeline. If there is to be a real countrywide roll-out of home zones, the Government need to use their powers under the Transport Act 2000 to introduce regulations to allow local authorities to declare what are known as "speed" and "use" orders in home zone areas. Without such regulations, which have been awaited for three years, I fear that the concept of the home zone will not really take off in the UK as it has done so successfully in many European countries. Hon. Members may be aware of the situation in the Netherlands and Germany, where the home zone is a well-known feature of the urban landscape. The home zone should be not an occasional, exotic creation, but an arrangement that is the norm in residential areas up and down the country.
I shall close by reminding hon. Members that this year about 700 pedestrians and cyclists were killed on Britain's urban roads alone, and about 10,000 were seriously injured. There are also accidents involving motorists and a toll of death and injury on rural roads. If the number of people who die or are seriously injured on the roads were the product of one serious incident on the railways or in the air, there would be an outcry for immediate and instant action. It is time that we treated the death and injury toll on our roads with the same urgency. The Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety, which has done much good work in this area, has estimated that the measures I propose in the Bill, if fully implemented across the country, could save up to 450 of the 700 lives of pedestrians and cyclists that are lost each year in urban areas. For that reason, I ask the House to support my Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Mark Lazarowicz, Helen Jackson, Ms Julia Drown, Peter Bottomley, Ms Joan Walley, Mr. David Kidney, Mr. Andrew Dismore, Mr. Brian H. Donohoe, Mr. Don Foster, Tom Brake, Rob Marris and David Wright.

ROAD SAFETY
Mr. Mark Lazarowicz accordingly presented a Bill to provide local traffic authorities with powers to develop urban safety hierarchies; to identify 20 mph zones and home zones; to require the Secretary of State to issue guidance on the setting of speed limits; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 11 July, and to be printed [Bill 132].

Anti-social Behaviour Bill (Programme) (No. 2)
2.17 pm
The Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing, and Community Safety (Ms Hazel Blears): I beg to move,
That the programme order of 8th April 2003 in relation to the Anti-social Behaviour Bill be varied as follows—

Anti-social Behaviour Bill (Programme) (No. 2)

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

  TABLE

  Proceedings

  Time for conclusion of proceedings

  Amendments to Part 1, New Clauses relating to Part 1, New Schedules relating to Part 1, amendments to Clauses 12 to 14, Schedule 1 and Clauses 15 to 17, New Clauses relating to Part 2, New Schedules relating to Part 2, amendments to Part 3, New Clauses relating to Part 3, New Schedules relating to Part 3.

  An hour and three quarters after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.

  Amendments to Part 4, New Clauses relating to Part 4, New Schedules relating to Part 4, amendments to Clauses 36 to 39, Schedule 2 and Clauses 40 and 41, New Clauses relating to Part 5, New Schedules relating to Part 5.

  Three and a quarter hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.

  Amendments to Part 6, New Clauses relating to Part 6, New Schedules relating to Part 6, amendments to Part 7, New Clauses relating to Part 7, New Schedules relating to Part 7, remaining New Clauses, remaining New Schedules, amendments to Clause 56, Schedule 3 and Clauses 57 to 61, remaining proceedings on the Bill.

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

  4. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion six hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.
  I am pleased to be part of the consideration of the Anti-Social Behaviour Bill. This issue is close to my heart, and is very important to my community in Salford—it is probably our top issue. I should like to place on record my grateful thanks to my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), for his impressive handling of the Bill in Committee. He dealt with some extensive debates tremendously. I also thank the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), who was an effective member of the Committee. As I am new to the Bill, I shall look to her for support during these proceedings.
  I do not want to detain the House, because I am sure that all hon. Members are keen to get on with the substance of the debate. Much consultation has taken place through the usual channels, and I am grateful for the support of Opposition parties on this matter. I should also like to thank the Government Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell), who did much to facilitate the overwhelmingly positive and constructive debates that took place in Committee.
  The motion provides for the total amount of time for discussion of the Bill to be six hours. I hope that the structure of the programme motion will allow hon. Members to debate the subjects that they want to discuss, as there are important matters before us. I suggest that we get on with that debate as quickly as we possibly can to ensure that we have time to explore the issues.
  2.19 pm
  Mr. James Paice: I welcome the Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety and, indeed, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), who, as has been rightly remarked, was an esteemed member of the Committee that considered the Bill. I hope only that, during the afternoon, in her ministerial capacities she does not have to say things that are at odds with what she said when she was a Back-Bench Committee member. Time will tell. I congratulate both Ministers on their appointments and welcome them to their posts and to the debate.
  I share in the plaudits to the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), who led the Bill constructively. Many of the amendments and new clauses that we shall discuss later are the result, I am pleased to say, of him listening to the arguments. We shall deal with those in detail.
  The Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety said that much discussion took place with the usual channels. That is true, but it was based on a certain lack of information—I will not go so far as to say misinformation—inasmuch as that negotiation took place on Wednesday and it was not until Thursday that the Government tabled a vast tranche of new clauses and amendments. Therefore, the discussions on the timetable motion were in terms of six hours instead of the usual six and a half. We know, because of earlier proceedings, one of the reasons for that, but the overall time was reduced, only one day was allocated and the knives fall where they fall because, as I say, we did not appreciate what the Government were going to do on Thursday.
  Obviously, I am not at this stage saying whether those new clauses and amendments meet with our approval. That issue will come up during the afternoon. Some we welcome and some less so. Some are substantial and some were not previously indicated by the Government, in particular the amendment on residential courses under parenting orders. At no time was that raised in a previous discussion; it has come completely out of the blue to us. The amendments and new clauses were tabled on Thursday. We have had little or no time to consult on those with interested specialist organisations outside the House.
  The Minister is right that we want to get on to debate those issues. Nevertheless, there is a point of principle here. The Government, having consulted with us in, we thought, good faith, later tabled a range of new items to be debated. Therefore, the timetable that we previously agreed is no longer apposite and I wish to oppose the motion.
  Mr. John Bercow: My hon. Friend advances the argument about the timetable motion with that combination of reserve and self-effacement for which he is renowned in all parts of the House. Does he agree that, in the light of the fact that we have no fewer than 105 new clauses and amendments to consider today, and that that entails an average time allocation of fewer than three minutes per new clause and amendment, the Government are doing violence to the responsibilities of Parliament to scrutinise legislation?
  Mr. Paice: My hon. Friend puts it in words that, as he rightly describes me as using reserve, I perhaps would not use, but it is an abuse of parliamentary procedure to agree a timetable through the usual channels and then effectively to destroy the appropriateness of that timetable by tabling all these amendments and new clauses.
  Mr. Graham Allen: Will the hon. Gentleman therefore support the declaration that Leader of the House made this morning that, wherever possible, all future Bills should go through pre-legislative scrutiny, so that the Government can import ideas, if not amendments, at a very early stage?
  Mr. Paice: I was not present when the part-time Leader of the House made that remark—
  Mr. Allen: The hon. Gentleman must be part-time, otherwise he would have heard the Leader of the House.
  Mr. Paice: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I am certainly not part-time.
  Of course, Conservative Members always welcome pre-legislative scrutiny. If that is to be the Government's approach to all legislation, they will not find opposition from those on the Conservative Benches.
  I wish to proceed with discussion of the Bill, but I believe that it is right that the House should put down a marker that we do not approve of what has happened in the past few days. Therefore, we shall seek to divide the House on the motion.
  2.24 pm
  Simon Hughes: I warmly welcome the Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety and the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), to their new positions. The team has been welcomed collectively, but it is the first time that they have come into bat on a Home Office Bill. We are glad to engage with them. We hope to persuade them and we hope that they do not come with fixed views.
  We know that it is always difficult for Ministers picking up a Bill that has been led by others—the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Don Valley, was a Back Bencher on the Committee—suddenly to come to it with fresh thinking, but my hon. Friends and I hope that some of the arguments that we shall advance today will receive at least a positive response; obviously, we will not get all that we want this afternoon. We look forward to this afternoon's debate and to forthcoming debates.
  898
  I shall be brief because, as a result of the constraints that we are under, this debate is eating into the time to debate the substance. My colleagues and I share the view that this is exactly the sort of Bill that should not be guillotined. That is not a criticism of the Government Whip, who as always is as accommodating as he is allowed to be. The reality is not just that Government amendments and new clauses have been tabled after discussions about the timetable, but that we have portmanteau legislation.
  The first part should be in a criminal justice Bill. The second and third parts should be in a housing Bill; they should not be in this Bill at all and need proper debate. The fourth part should be in an education Bill. The fifth part would be significant and controversial in any legislation and has received a critical report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights of both Houses of Parliament. The sixth part is not quite as controversial, and is to do with fixed penalty notices. The evidence that we were promised ha s not yet been forthcoming.
  The seventh part should partly be in a children's Bill; the new Minister for Children no doubt has some interest in it. It is possibly a Department for Education and Skills matter or a social services matter. There are local government implications. Then we come to matters that are never uncontroversial: legislation about firearms, significant changes to do with age limits and powers. There is always controversy and proper debate about those. That is followed by environmental and graffiti matters. Every hon. Member has an interest in those—Back Benchers who were not on the Committee and who are not spokespeople for their parties may have something to say. Lastly, there are matters that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, know about from your constituency and most rural colleagues know a lot about, although urban colleagues may deal with them not infrequently: matters to do with trespass, land use and travellers.
  Those are major controversial issues. To think that we can do justice to those matters in six hours defies the most disciplined people in the most disciplined of Parliaments. It is just not possible.
  David Wright: The hon. Gentleman said that it was not appropriate to guillotine today's business. How long does he think we should debate the Bill for, and what would he say to residents in Oakengates in my constituency, who on Friday insisted that the powers in the Bill be brought in as quickly as possible?
  Simon Hughes: There are two issues there. People always want things as soon as possible. They will not know what is in the Bill. [Interruption.] Even if they do, I hope that they would expect Parliament to do its job properly.
  The worst legislation is rushed legislation. The worst of the worst legislation is where Government Back Benchers do not properly scrutinise those on the Government Front Bench. The worst of the worst of the worst legislation is a Bill such as this, which was a shop window exercise before the local elections. It is a Christmas tree of a Bill, with some things clearly

  899
  intended to be entirely window-dressing exercises, rather than properly thought-through legislation. I shall not get into the whole debate now.
  Mr. Allen: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Simon Hughes: Let me finish dealing with the point that was raised by the hon. Member for Telford (David Wright). Other than Ministers, it is the job of all of us to scrutinise the Government. If he thinks that the whole House of Commons can scrutinise the Government on a Bill such as this in six hours, he is denying proper scrutiny of the Executive. The Bill probably would be adequately debated over two days; that is the answer. If he thinks that antisocial behaviour is important, it should be given two days and Parliament should be able to do its job properly.
  Mr. Allen: It is incumbent on all those who complain about programme motions to come up with a positive alternative and to put it to the House, and I hope that pre-legislative scrutiny provides for that. However, the hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He complains about the Bill's cross-Departmental elements, but that is the joined-up thinking through which various Departments contribute to a matter that does not fall within the ambit of a particular Department. I know that the hon. Gentleman has to score his point, but I hope that he accepts that it is a considerable breakthrough for Ministers to be working together in this way.
  Simon Hughes: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I am completely signed up to trying to get more joined-up thinking. That is why my colleagues and I welcomed, encouraged and supported cross-Departmental Question Time in Westminster Hall, and why we submitted questions. Indeed, I was the Member who asked the first question in the cross-Departmental Question Time on youth matters. It is important to try to achieve a broad range.
  Ms Dari Taylorrose—Ms Dari Taylor (Stockton, South) rose—
  Simon Hughes: I happen to know that there is a lot of controversy between Departments about this Bill, and that some were not nearly as keen as the Home Office on certain of the measures in it. I also happen to know that there were many rows inside the Government. Some felt that they were being bulldozed—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. We are making a meal of something that is not within the terms of the motion before the House. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman return to the motion.
  Simon Hughes: The point in relation to timetabling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is that those matters may deserve to be explored. However—
  Ms Taylor rose—
  Simon Hughes: Will the hon. Lady please wait a second? Pre-legislative scrutiny is of course a way of
  900
  ensuring that we do not have such difficulties later on. I entirely support and have always supported—as have my colleagues—the use of White Papers and Green Papers and various pre-legislative processes. Such processes always improve matters, so that we are less rushed and have to deal less frequently with last-minute amendments.
  Ms Taylor rose—
  Simon Hughes: I shall give way, but for the last time.
  Ms Taylor: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. Will he acknowledge that we spent more than 80 hours considering the Bill in Committee, that he was present for none of that time—it is appropriate that that be said—and that at each sitting the discussions were full and complete? No one was left wanting to make a statement, and we did not run out of time.
  Simon Hughes: Of course I acknowledge that, but I should hope that the hon. Lady knows by now that only a few colleagues are nominated to a Standing Committee. I was not nominated for the Committee in question, but my hon. Friends the Members for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) and for Ludlow (Matthew Green) were, and they served on it throughout. Indeed, the hon. Lady will remember that they were assiduous in their contributions. This is the time when the rest of us get our say. Some 20 people served in Committee, but the rest of the 659 Members of Parliament—excluding those who are members of the Government—may want to have their say today.
  Ms Taylor rose—
  Andrew Selousrose—Andrew Selous (South-West Bedfordshire) rose—
  Simon Hughes: I shall not give way again. [Interruption.] I said that I am not going to give way again.
  Today is an opportunity for those who did not serve in Committee to have their say. Since proceedings began in Committee, some 530 Members have not had an opportunity to contribute to the debate. If they want to speak, this is the occasion to do so, and we should allow them the necessary time.
  My colleagues—like the Conservatives and, I hope, Labour Back Benchers who are in favour of free speech and proper scrutiny—will oppose the timetable motion because we believe that Bills such as this deserve more time on the Floor of the House.
  2.33 p.m.
  Ms Blears: I can tell that we are going to have an extremely lively debate. I was about to say that the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) was perhaps guilty of hyperbole—unlike the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), who dealt with the issues with some reserve—but it is clear that the hyperbole is infectious. I am sure that we are going to have a great day.
  On the specific point about residential parenting orders that was made by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire, my predecessor, the hon. Member

  901
  for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth)—whom I am delighted to see in the Chamber—pointed out in Committee, in respect of the relevant clause:
  "The clause … needs to be modified to allow greater flexibility in the delivery of programmes"—
  a view shared by everybody in Committee—
  "for example by making a residential component possible where it is considered necessary."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 8 May 2003; c. 103.]
  So that issue was clearly flagged up in Committee and is not new.
  Andrew Selous: Does the Minister share my regret that new clause 3, which was proposed by the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), will not be debated today? There is a lot to be said for putting parenting within the scope of the national curriculum, so that a stigma is not attached to specific parents when, as part of a parenting order—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should not talk about a new clause or amendment that has not been selected for debate, and he certainly should not even attempt to talk about such matters during a debate on a programme motion. I call Ms Hazel Blears.
  Ms Blears: On the other concerns raised by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire, I acknowledge that it is right that Members have proper time to consider amendments. My understanding is that virtually all the issues to which the new clauses and amendments relate were raised in Committee. It is fair to say that in this instance, we have been a very responsive and listening Government, and we have tried to introduce proposals that meet the Committee's concerns. Whether the hon. Gentleman can support them remains to be seen, but we have certainly endeavoured to deal with some of the issues that were raised.
  Mr. Bercow: I much appreciate the Minister's earlier remarks—I have never been accused of reserve and I should be very sorry indeed to lose my record thus far. I say to her in all candour and seriousness that pre-legislative scrutiny, although extremely valuable, is never a substitute for, or an alternative to, proper scrutiny on the Floor of the House, particularly in the minds of those who were not such privileged citizens as those who participated in the Standing Committee.
  Ms Blears: The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly reasonable point—for once—and belies his reputation. Pre-legislative scrutiny is a useful tool—in addition to the scrutiny that we undertake on behalf of those who sent us here. That is an important role.
  There was plenty of time in Committee to debate all of these issues. I understand that time did not run out—in fact, unusually, things were a little lax—so I am surprised that Members feel so strongly about this issue.
  Mr. Paice: The Minister must not confuse consideration in Committee with proceedings on the Floor of the House. What she says about the Standing Committee is perfectly true, but there were many issues that the Government took away. I repeat: it was not
  902
  until Thursday that we knew that the Government were going to respond to those issues at this stage. We were not aware, bearing in mind the proceedings in the other place to follow, that the Government intended to wait until Thursday to deal with these matters. My concern was not what the Government did, but that they did not act in time for us properly to scrutinise their new proposals.
  Ms Blears: As I said, I understand the hon. Gentleman's concerns and I hope that, during today's proceedings, we will have a good opportunity to ventilate issues that were canvassed in Committee but perhaps not discussed in great detail.
  I should point out to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) that individuals and communities do not conform to the silos of Government Departments. We in this House should be grateful that this Bill constitutes an attempt to put the victim, the witness and the community at the centre, and to wrap services around them in an innovative way, to try to ensure that the law that we pass really does address the needs of those communities, rather than of individual Government Departments. We need to look at this issue from a different perspective, and with a little imagination and creativity. This Bill is an excellent example of Ministers and Departments working together. It will not be perfect, but making a start through this Bill is an excellent way to proceed.
  I do not want to delay the House any longer. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) made a very good point about integrated government and new ways of working, and I commend the programme motion to the House.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 282, Noes 175.

  Division No. 250]

  [2:38 pm

  AYES

  Ainger, Nick

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Bryant, Chris

  Allen, Graham

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

  Burgon, Colin

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

  Burnham, Andy

  Byers, rh Stephen

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Cairns, David

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Austin, John

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Bailey, Adrian

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Barnes, Harry

  Caton, Martin

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Beard, Nigel

  Challen, Colin

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Benn, Hilary

  Chaytor, David

  Bennett, Andrew

  Clapham, Michael

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Best, Harold

  Betts, Clive

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

  Boateng, rh Paul

  Borrow, David

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Clelland, David

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Brennan, Kevin

  Cohen, Harry

  Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

  Coleman, Iain

  Colman, Tony

  903

  Connarty, Michael

  Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Cooper, Yvette

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

  Corston, Jean

  Cousins, Jim

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Crausby, David

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

  Cruddas, Jon

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Cummings, John

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

  Illsley, Eric

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Jackson Helen (Hillsborough)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Jamieson, David

  David, Wayne

  Jenkins, Brian

  Davidson, Ian

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Denham, rh John

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Dhanda, Parmjit

  Kaufman, rh Gerald

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Kemp, Fraser

  Doran, Frank

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

  Kidney, David

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Edwards, Huw

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Efford, Clive

  Leslie, Christopher

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Farrelly, Paul

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

  Fisher, Mark

  Linton, Martin

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Love, Andrew

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Flint, Caroline

  Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

  Follett, Barbara

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Foster, rh Derek

  McCabe, Stephen

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  McCartney, rh Ian

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  MacDonald, Calum

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  McDonnell, John

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  MacDougall, John

  Gardiner, Barry

  McIsaac, Shona

  Gerrard, Neil

  McKechin, Ann

  Gilroy, Linda

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Godsiff, Roger

  MacShane, Denis

  Goggins, Paul

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McWalter, Tony

  Grogan, John

  McWilliam, John

  Hain, rh Peter

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Mandelson, rh Peter

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Hanson, David

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

  Martlew, Eric

  Meacher, rh Michael

  Healey, John

  Merron, Gillian

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Michael, rh Alun

  Hendrick, Mark

  Miliband, David

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Miller, Andrew

  Heppell, John

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Moffatt, Laura

  Heyes, David

  Mole, Chris

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Moonie, Dr. Lewis

  Hinchliffe, David

  Moran, Margaret

  Hodge, Margaret

  Morley, Elliot

  904

  Mountford, Kali

  Sheridan, Jim

  Mudie, George

  Singh, Marsha

  Mullin, Chris

  Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Soley, Clive

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

  Steinberg, Gerry

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

  Olner, Bill

  Owen, Albert

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Palmer, Dr. Nick

  Stringer, Graham

  Picking, Anne

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Pickthall, Colin

  Tami, Mark (Alyn)

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  Plaskitt, James

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Pollard, Kerry

  Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Pound, Stephen

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

  Trickett, Jon

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Truswell, Paul

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Purchase, Ken

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Purnell, James

  Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Rammell, Bill

  Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  White, Brian

  Raynsford, rh Nick

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

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

  Williams, Betty (Conwy)

  Wilson, Brian

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Winnick, David

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Rooney, Terry

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Wood, Mike (Batley)

  Ruane, Chris

  Woolas, Phil

  Ruddock, Joan

  Worthington, Tony

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Sawford, Phil

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Derek Twigg and

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Vernon Coaker

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Cable, Dr. Vincent

  Allan, Richard

  Calton, Mrs Patsy

  Amess, David

  Cameron, David

  Ancram, rh Michael

  Cash, William

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Chidgey, David

  Bacon, Richard

  Chope, Christopher

  Baker, Norman

  Clappison, James

  Baldry, Tony

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Barker, Gregory

  Conway, Derek

  Baron, John (Billericay)

  Cotter, Brian

  Barrett, John

  Curry, rh David

  Bellingham, Henry

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Bercow, John

  Doughty, Sue

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

  Blunt, Crispin

  Evans, Nigel

  Boswell, Tim

  Ewing, Annabelle

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Brady, Graham

  Fallon, Michael

  Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

  Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

  Brazier, Julian

  Breed, Colin

  Flight, Howard

  Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

  Flook, Adrian

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Forth, rh Eric

  Burns, Simon

  Fox, Dr. Liam

  Burstow, Paul

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Burt, Alistair

  Garnier, Edward

  905

  George, Andrew (St. Ives)

  Paterson, Owen

  Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

  Pickles, Eric

  Gidley, Sandra

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

  Goodman, Paul

  Gray, James (N Wilts)

  Randall, John

  Grayling, Chris

  Redwood, rh John

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

  Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

  Rendel, David

  Greenway, John

  Robathan, Andrew

  Grieve, Dominic

  Robertson, Angus (Moray)

  Gummer, rh John

  Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

  Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Hawkins, Nick

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Hayes, John (S Holland)

  Rosindell, Andrew

  Heald, Oliver

  Ruffley, David

  Heath, David

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

  Sanders, Adrian

  Hendry, Charles

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Hermon, Lady

  Selous, Andrew

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

  Holmes, Paul

  Simmonds, Mark

  Horam, John (Orpington)

  Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

  Howard, rh Michael

  Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Jack, rh Michael

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Stanley, rh Sir John

  Johnson, Boris (Henley)

  Steen, Anthony

  Keetch, Paul

  Streeter, Gary

  Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Syms, Robert

  Kirkwood, Sir Archy

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Lamb, Norman

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Laws, David (Yeovil)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Leigh, Edward

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Letwin, rh Oliver

  Thurso, John

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Tonge, Dr. Jenny

  Liddell-Grainger, Ian

  Tredinnick, David

  Lidington, David

  Trimble, rh David

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Loughton, Tim

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Luff, Peter(M-Worcs)

  Tyrie, Andrew

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Viggers, Peter

  Mackay, rh Andrew

  Waterson, Nigel

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Watkinson, Angela

  Malins, Humfrey

  Webb, Steve (Northavon)

  Maples, John

  Weir, Michael

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

  Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

  Wiggin, Bill

  Maude, rh Francis

  Willetts, David

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Williams, Roger (Brecon)

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Willis, Phil

  Wilshire, David

  Moore, Michael

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  Moss, Malcolm

  Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Norman, Archie

  Wishart, Pete

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Young, rh Sir George

  Osborne, George (Tatton)

  Younger-Ross, Richard

  Ottaway, Richard

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Page, Richard

  Mr. Mark Hoban and

  Paice, James

  Mr. Mark Francois

  Question accordingly agreed to.

Orders of the Day
  Anti-social Behaviour Bill
  As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
  Anti-social Behaviour Bill
    Clause 1

      CLOSURE NOTICE
      2.52 pm
      Mr. Nick Hawkins: I beg to move amendment No. 62, in page 1, line 8, after 'A', insert 'B or C'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 63, in page 1, line 9, leave out 'and' and insert 'or'.
      No. 65, in page 3, line 3, in clause 2, after 'A', insert 'B or C'.
      No. 64, in page 3, line 3, at end insert 'or'.
      No. 66, in page 3, line 4, leave out paragraph (b).
      No. 67, in page 3, line 5, at end insert 'or'.
      No. 68, in page 3, line 6, leave out paragraph (c).
      No. 92, in page 6, line 37, in clause 9, after 'constable', insert 'or authorised person'.
      No. 69, in page 8, line 2, in clause 11, at end insert—
      'and Class B and Class C controlled drugs which are Class B and Class C drugs within the meaning of that Act'.
      Government amendment No. 30.
      Mr. Hawkins: The Conservatives have no problem with the clarification contained in Government amendment No. 30, which helpfully pursues a point that we made in Committee. My interpretation of amendment No. 92, tabled by the Liberal Democrats, is that it is also an attempt to clarify matters.
      We discussed in Committee the issues relating to the extension of the powers to close premises in which drug dealing is taking place to cover class B and C drugs, as well as class A drugs—as the Bill currently provides. We feel so strongly about the matter that we are returning to it again today. We voted on it in Committee and although, of course, we were defeated by the massed ranks of Labour Back Benchers, we wish to debate this important matter again today. We had some support from Labour Back Benchers in Committee. Indeed, in response to similar amendments tabled by the Liberal Democrats, some helpful comments were made by the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), now Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department. Of course, she then had the freedom of the Back Benches. I join my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) in welcoming both Ministers to their posts, but we will look with interest at everything that the Under-Secretary said when she spoke for herself as a Back Bencher in Committee, in case she is briefed to say slightly different things now that she has been elevated to her new position. On this group of amendments, she was helpful to the case that I am seeking to put, because she pointed out that people who have taken cannabis can often behave in a very silly

      907
      way. That supports my point that the extra powers would be useful in seeking to deal with antisocial behaviour.
      The Liberal Democrats were, as usual, all over the place, with their two spokesmen on the Committee failing to agree with each other, and their more senior spokesman—the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke)— expressing reservations about her policy stance on such matters at their party conference. She said that she would give details of her personal position later. But the Conservatives feel that the powers of the police to close premises where antisocial behaviour has arisen because of class B drugs should be extended to class C drugs. That is because the Government have—unwisely, in our view—announced plans to downgrade cannabis from class B to class C. However, we have noted that the Government have now put back the date on which that downgrading will take place, and we have seen some media coverage of that in the past.
      Our position can be succinctly stated. It would be helpful if police officers had the discretion to close premises if antisocial behaviour arose from the use of class B and class C drugs on those premises. As I pointed out in Committee, if one property in a street—and this is particularly true of tourist resorts with many small bed-and-breakfast establishments—becomes known as a place where drug dealing takes place, the bad drives out the good. The good hotelier, who is uninvolved in drugs, will get fewer and fewer customers, because it becomes known that the street contains a property that is used for drug dealing, the consumption of drugs or both. Because of such antisocial behaviour, we say that if the police had the discretion to intervene even in cases in which it cannot be proved that class A drugs are involved, it would be in the interests of the law-abiding members of the community.
      The Government's response in Committee was that there is a particular problem with class A drugs—for example, crack houses—and we accept that. Many members of the Committee made that point from their knowledge of their constituencies and other inner-city areas. However, our response was that problems could arise from other drug use. The hon. Member for Gedling (Vernon Coaker), in particular, gave us some support for that view from the Labour Back Benches. If premises are used to produce, manufacture or distribute class B or C drugs, people—especially young people—can be drawn into the drugs subculture. We accept that some of the existing powers may not always be used properly by the forces of law and order, and local people often put pressure on them to do more. The powers in the Bill that are restricted to class A drugs could, if used properly, provide some extra strings for the police's bow. From my experience over many years, both prosecuting and defending drugs cases at the Bar in the midlands, I know that the problems are not restricted to class A drugs.
      I hope that the Government will continue to consider the matter thoroughly. Even if they cannot accept amendments Nos. 62 to 69, we would be delighted if the Minister will undertake to keep the matter under review and consult with local authorities and senior police
      908
      officers. Many of them will tell her that it would be useful if the powers were not restricted solely to class A drugs.
      3 pm
      Mrs. Annette L. Brooke: I wish to begin by putting on record the thanks of Liberal Democrat Members for the work done in Standing Committee by the former Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth) and for the part that he played in our debates. We may have had some quite strong disagreements, but the then Minister's good humour and ability to listen to all points of view was very welcome.
      I too shall be brief. We had a comprehensive discussion in Committee of this part of the Bill. There was a strong feeling that the aim should be to target class A drugs, to tackle very serious issues of antisocial behaviour, and to use resources effectively.
      The Conservative amendments are strange in places. They would mean that ordinary households could face closure notices, and their inclusion of class C drugs could lead to the criminalisation of millions of people. That would be less than productive, given the specific aim of the Bill. We need effective action to deal with what is a very serious problem.
      The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) was right to say that amendment No. 92 returns to an issue that we have raised before. We are not sure that the matter that it addresses is absolutely clear, and I hope that the Minister will give us more reassurance on that. The House will recall that the debate in Committee began with the statement in clause 3 that a
      "constable or an authorised person"
      may enter premises and do anything
      "reasonably necessary to secure the premises against entry by any person."
      It was explained in Committee that the authorised person could be a carpenter. Our amendment No. 92 deals with clause 9, which exempts the constable from certain damages but which does not mention the authorised person. That person—the carpenter—could do damage to the property involved. We do not want to give the authorised person unlimited liability, but a balance has to be struck. Our amendment is the simplest way to ensure that the carpenter—or authorised person—would not get caught up in litigation.
      We are also worried about the safety of the authorised person in the situation set out in clause 9. Is it clear that all the people present have been removed from the premises by the police? If a person under the influence of drugs goes back into the building, there is a danger that he might attack the authorised person.
      I hope that amendment No. 92 makes crystal clear our concerns about clause 9.
      Ms Dari Taylor: I hope that the House will not agree to amendments Nos. 62 to 69. The hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) put her finger on the problem very neatly. We are talking about very dangerous addictive drugs. People who use crack are often totally out of control. The specific requirements for crack and heroin are

      909
      different from what is needed in connection with other drugs. All of us in the Chamber should acknowledge that.
      Rejecting the Conservative amendments would also make it clear that we are speaking about enforcement. We must focus our activity and use police time effectively. If we do not focus in the way set out in the Bill, we will spread our resources to thinly and have significantly less effect as a result.
      I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will understand that the Conservative amendments are neither valuable nor important. We must keep focusing on crack cocaine, which is seriously destructive—for the people who take it, for their families, and for the communities in which they live. We must rid our communities of that scourge.
      Mr. Julian Brazier: I rise to support my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) in urging the Government to accept the Conservative amendments. As he said, they would amend closure notices and orders in two principal ways, by separating drug taking from associated nuisance when notices and orders are made, and by extending the drug categories involved, so that drugs in classes B and C were also covered, as well as those in class A.
      I hope that the House will excuse me if I draw on constituency cases of mine. I do not intend to speak for long. A case that is current in my constituency involves a young lady who has some mental difficulties. Her boyfriend, an extremely violent and unpleasant drug taker, moved in with her. After suffering sustained domestic violence, she fled the premises. She now lives in another town.
      The young man continued to terrorise the neighbours, one of whom was a young male tenant in a neighbouring property. He had learning difficulties, but was nevertheless managing to look after his property. My constituent's former boyfriend remained heavily involved in activities with a variety of drugs.
      The story is close to having a happy ending. The council and the police were able to take joint action, under existing legislation. However, the House should imagine what would have happened if the case that I have described were different in one of two possible ways. First, if the man had married the young lady before he began to beat her up—or at least had entered a long-term arrangement with her to the point that he shared tenancy of the property with her—the process of evicting him would have been much more complicated. In either case, he would have been a fully legal tenant, with all that that implies in connection with tenure. We shall discuss the question of tenure later.
      The second possibility has to do with the extremely brave ladies who lived in the street. They came to see me at my surgery, and caused me to take action in the matter. They were faced with the threats of violence from the man at the centre of this case, but were willing to go public about what was happening. It is fortunate that the man involved was acting on his own. Had he been part of a gang that was terrorising the neighbourhood, the situation would have been very different when the matter went to court.
      910
      I shall explain why amendment No. 63, and the three or four associated amendments, are necessary. Although it is straightforward to show in a magistrates court that a property is being used for drug taking—all sorts of forensic evidence is usually available in such cases—it is by no means as straightforward to show that a property is a source of public nuisance. If people in the same street are too frightened to testify, how can magistrates establish that a property is the focus of a public nuisance? There is no doubt that the property to which I have referred was such a focus.
      If the man whom I have described had been a legitimate tenant in the property, and not merely lived for a few months with the unfortunate woman who suffered violence at his hands, how could any court—magistrates court or Crown court—reasonably establish that the house was a centre for public nuisance? That is why it is important that the public nuisance test should be separate from the test of drug taking; if memory serves, that point was originally raised by Labour Members on Second Reading. Amendment No. 63 and its consequential provisions are essential if the Bill is to strengthen the police's armoury, as Members on both sides of the House want.
      Ms Dari Taylor: Would the hon. Gentleman acknowledge the scale of the problem that we are discussing? I suggest that he moves to Teesside where the number of crack houses is growing exponentially. We do not have just one such house but many hundreds of them. We are talking about the effectiveness of police operations in dealing with a problem of that scale. Will the hon. Gentleman bear that in mind as he addresses the issue? Adding class B and C drugs to the clause, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, would undermine effective police operation.
      Mr. Brazier: I hear what the hon. Lady says. I was just about to refer to the amendments on the extension of the powers to classes B and C. Before I do so, I hope that she will acknowledge that nothing that she said in either her speech or her intervention goes against the proposals in amendment No. 63 and their consequentials; they have nothing to do with extending the provisions to classes B and C. It is unfortunate that two sets of our amendments were grouped together as they have different purposes.
      Amendment No. 63 deals with removing the requirement to show that a crack house is also a public nuisance. The hon. Lady's Labour colleagues were the first to object to that additional requirement. The amendment would insert the word "or" in place of "and" in the relevant provisions. It is obviously much easier to prove that somewhere is a crack house than that it is a public nuisance, because witnesses are not required.
      The hon. Lady referred to the scale of the problem. The police are never forced to pursue any particular case. Policing priorities remain those set down by the chief constable, as they have been for many, many years. Our proposals would offer the police the opportunity—if they want to take it—to deal with houses that have become notorious. In every city in the country, including Canterbury and Whitstable in my constituency, we know of houses that are regularly used for class B and C drug taking. There are all-night parties and it is difficult for people in the neighbourhood to give their children an ordinary upbringing.

      911
      Nobody is forcing the police to pursue such cases. My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath pointed out that one house that is on the way down can set the tone for a whole street and we can learn from the policing successes in New York in that regard. The Kent police force, whose chief constable, Sir David Phillips, is in his last week of tenure, is especially good and has achieved some of the largest crime reductions in the country. In Thanet, a neighbouring constituency to mine, the burglary rate is only 10 per cent. of what it was in the first week of Sir David's tenure. That is a remarkable record. If the Kent police were given the opportunity to use the legislation in respect of class B and C drugs as well as class A drugs, from time to time they would do so, to make an example of people and to prevent areas going to the bad before the problem got out of hand.
      I promised that my speech would be brief. We have a ridiculously short time in which to discuss a great deal of material. I urge the House to support our amendments and to understand the differences between them. The first set of provisions should be uncontentious, as they were initially raised from the Labour Benches in Committee.
      3.15 pm
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Caroline Flint): I am delighted to be taking part in the debate on this excellent Bill. I thank all the colleagues with whom I served on the Standing Committee. One of my first jobs on taking office was to request a document setting out everything that I had said in Committee. I am pleased to note that I said nothing then that I would not be prepared to say today.
      I welcome the Minister for Housing and Planning, as he will be dealing with parts of the Bill. I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), who, in Committee, had to put up with quite a lot from me and others, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell) who was sometimes worried that every time he left the Room the Labour ranks were mutinying behind his back.
      What was positive in Committee was that we had extensive time to discuss and explore a range of issues. Sometimes, we challenged the Minister and on many occasions my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East was a credit to his job, providing the reassurances that we needed. That was good.
      I thank the Opposition for raising issues in Committee, as they have done today. Their concerns gave rise to considerable discussion in Committee and my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East agreed to consider their arguments on Report. As a member of the Committee and in the short time that I have been a Minister, I, too, have reflected on what was said and the issues that were raised about premises used for drug taking. We take the problems seriously and have held interdepartmental and external consultations on them with drug organisations and the Association of Chief Police Officers.
      We also continue to receive representations from Back Benchers. The problems of antisocial behaviour show the importance of the links between constituencies and MPs. Few other subjects so reflect the strong role
      912
      that MPs play in representing the views of their community, in differing communities throughout the country.
      The power in this part of the Bill was devised to deal with a specific problem that police and housing providers asked us to address: the closure of properties where drugs such as crack and heroin are used and sold, and where intense nuisance is also found. It is to be used only when all other methods of tackling the problem have been exhausted, or would take too long, unnecessarily prolonging damage to communities as a result. Such powers are not to be used lightly. They are severe.
      Amendments Nos. 62, 65 and 69 would expand that power to cover class B and C drugs. As press coverage has shown, we have given that proposal active consideration and we held external consultations, following the Committee stage. Nevertheless, after great thought, we decided that we should continue to focus the power exclusively on class A drugs—a point made particularly well by my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor). In the update of the national drugs strategy, we clearly stated our intention of focusing action on drugs in that way, which was widely welcomed. Class A drugs cause the greatest harm and are associated with serious nuisance, by which I mean violent nuisance. In deciding to reject the amendment, we remain true to our intention to reflect the actual harm caused by the sale and use of those drugs.
      We have decided, therefore, that the creation of a new power to act against drugs other than class A controlled drugs would largely be a matter of presentation, rather than the creation of an appropriate power to control an actual problem. The Government intend to reclassify cannabis, as has already been mentioned, from a class B to a class C drug. That reflects the harm that it causes while making the drug classification system more credible to the public. However, that does not mean that we advocate cannabis use. The Government's policy is to concentrate on class A drugs and to restrict the power to close premises to those where such drugs are sold and used. However—
      Mr. John Bercow: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way and I warmly congratulate her on her appointment.
      Given the importance of achieving maximum impact for minimum effort within a framework of inevitably limited resources, does the hon. Lady concede—there would be no shame in her doing so—that in rejecting the amendments she is at least partly motivated by the consideration that there is a limit on the amount of money available and the amount of police time that can reasonably be expected to be committed?
      Caroline Flint: That reflects the priorities, the resources and the maximum impact on communities, and the reality is that crack houses, as they are referred to, have an enormous impact on communities. In crack houses where class A drugs are used, class B and C drugs may often be used as well.
      Mr. Graham Allen: I support what my hon. Friend says. Those powers will be greatly

      913
      welcomed by tenants' associations and others in my constituency who suffer from what goes on in such one-off drug dealing places. We do not, however, want extensive powers to be granted that will not then be used by the police, which is why focusing on and prioritising class A is absolutely right.
      Caroline Flint: I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution. This is about being effective and using smarter policing to tackle the damage that drugs cause in our communities.
      Although the Government's policy is to concentrate. on class A drugs and to restrict the proposed powers to the way that those drugs are sold and used, we will continue to ensure that the police act against those who sell or produce cannabis. The fact that the Criminal Justice Bill, which is being considered in the House, will extend the penalties for dealing in cannabis to 14 years is very important, and the Home Secretary and I support that change. As I have said before, people who use or sell cannabis as well as crack in such houses will be acted against, using those powers.
      Mr. Brazier: I also congratulate the Minister on her welcome appointment. She uses the word "effective". Surely the central issue about effectiveness and, indeed, using resources is that it is much easier to prove that a place is a crack house than to prove that it is a public nuisance. Will she now address amendment No. 63?
      Caroline Flint: I will deal with amendment No. 63 shortly, and I hope that my answer will satisfy the hon. Gentleman.
      A further reason for our decision was revealed in the external consultation. The feeling was that such expansion to class B and C drugs would have a negative impact on our colleagues who work with drug users in the treatment and homeless sector. It is not desirable to repeat the fear caused in that sector by the amendment of section 8 of the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, and further destabilise the sector. The risk would be that such agencies would avoid housing all drug users, which would create its own problems if those people were homeless, on the street and open to temptation and crime. That could lead to greater homelessness and harm to those individuals and society.
      Amendments Nos. 63, 64 and 67 would create a new power that could be applied to any circumstance of serious nuisance. As drafted, the new power, which is severe, is designed to apply to a specific situation of acute harm, where drugs are sold from buildings and where serious nuisance arises that needs to be dealt with quickly. In seeking to amend the Bill in that way, the Opposition want to create a blanket severe power that could be used in all situations of serious nuisance. It is our view that the power is appropriate only to the particular, acute circumstances of the sale of illegal drugs from crack houses, not to other types of serious nuisance where related criminality is not as severe.
      Those forms of nuisance should be controlled through other powers, not least the existing powers available to social landlords to evict tenants, which are strengthened in part 2. A whole host of other powers are therefore available to deal with that type of nuisance, which reflects the wish of hon. Members in Committee to ensure that the existing and new powers are used appropriately and to good effect.
      914
      Amendments Nos. 66 and 68 attempt to decouple serious nuisance from the drug-related behaviour involved. As a result, any home where someone was simply smoking crack or another class A drug, rather than causing nuisance, could be closed and the person made homeless. That would create a much more draconian response to the personal use of illegal drugs than is currently contained in the criminal law. Under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971, people would only receive fines for personal possession of drugs, but those amendments could cause them to lose their homes. That is undesirable.
      Although drug use is not to be condoned, the solution is not to throw people on to the streets, where their habit would almost certainly get worse and the harm they cause to society would be magnified. The power must be applicable only to those circumstances where the use, production or sale of drugs is associated with serious nuisance. Those amendments would undermine the system of penalties set up and agreed in the 1971 Act.
      Amendment No. 92—tabled by those on the Liberal Front Bench, represented by the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke)—reflects a concern, which was raised in Committee, as she rightly said, that authorised persons should have the same protection as the police against damages claims arising from the exercise of their powers. As she said, clarification was sought on that issue. Without the partial exemption from liability in clause 9, the police might be subject to large claims for damages arising from closure by those connected with running crack houses.
      The functions of authorised persons are limited to assisting in physically securing the building and carrying out emergency repairs and maintenance under clause 3. The job of carpenter was mentioned in Committee and if carpenters or other trades people are involved in assisting the police—for example, in knocking down a door under the direct orders and supervision of a constable—they are likely to be regarded as being within the exemption. If they are permitted to enter the property alone at a later date to carry out repairs, but carry out those non-police functions negligently, we see no reason why the ordinary law of negligence should not apply to them.
      Although the safety of trades people is not addressed in the Liberal Democrat amendment, I wish to say that, when boarding up premises, they will be accompanied by the police, who will offer protection and secure the property for their safety, so that they can carry out the work that they are asked to do. That cover could also be organised for any subsequent visit for further maintenance.
      As has been pointed out by the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), Government amendment No. 30 is acceptable. It deals with a technical matter and allows the definition of the owner of premises to include the freeholder and the leaseholder, where the property is subject to a lease of three years or more. Our intention to introduce such an amendment was signalled in Committee, and it is based on a culture of listening to hon. Members on both sides of the House, as well as to people outside.

      915
      This is a crucial issue for the communities that we represent—it is about smarter policing and taking precautions—so I request that the hon. Gentleman withdraw the amendment and that the House accept Government amendment No. 30.
      Mr. Hawkins: I shall be very brief. Of course, I have listened very carefully to what the Minister has had to say, but I hope that she will continue to keep such matters under review. She has rightly paid tribute to the work of her predecessor, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), who is now the Government deputy Chief Whip. I echo her congratulations to him on his promotion and her recognition of his very important work in Committee. Hon. Members on both sides of the Committee benefited from his constructive approach.
      On this group of amendments, however, I wish to draw the Minister's attention to what her hon. Friend said when he was the Minister. On 6 May, he drew attention to the fact, as my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) has just done, that the idea of the decoupling amendments that we moved in Committee—we have proposed similar ones again today—came from the Government's Back Benchers, particularly the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Stevenson). The proposal has not just come from Opposition Members; it is something on which the Minister's hon. Friends agree with us. We feel that, even though the police will not always use such powers, they will introduce an extra element of flexibility, so that where the police wanted to use them, they would have the chance to do so.
      In her response, the Minister drew attention to the fact that sometimes premises are used for the consumption of more than one drug. I therefore ask her to bear in mind the point raised once again by my hon. Friends the Members for Canterbury and for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) that serious nuisances can exist, even if they do not involve class A drugs, of the same kind that the then Minister, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East talked about:
      "We know what they are"—
      meaning the types of nuisances—
      "comings and goings 24 hours a day, soliciting in the area, paraphernalia and noise."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 6 May 2003; c. 32.]
      That is precisely why we say that all of those nuisances can arise even if class A drugs are not involved. We entirely accept what the Minister says about crack houses posing a particular problem, and no doubt these powers would mainly be used to deal with the scourge of crack houses to which the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor) has also referred, and which we recognise. I hope it will be borne in mind, however, as this Bill progresses to another place, that we continue to believe that it would be wise for these powers to be decoupled, and to have the flexibility, when appropriate—perhaps only in rare cases—to cover class B and class C drugs, too. At this stage, however, I do not seek to pursue the matter. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Clause 11

      INTERPRETATION
      Amendment made: No. 30, in page 8, line 27, in clause 11, leave out subsection (10) and insert—
      "() A person is the owner of premises if either of the following paragraphs applies to him—

      (a) he is a person (other than a mortgagee not in possession) who is for the time being entitled to dispose of the fee simple in the premises, whether in possession or in reversion;

      (b) he is a person who holds or is entitled to the rents and profits of the premises under a lease which (when granted) was for a term of not less than three years,',—[Keith Hill.]

    Clause 13

      INJUNCTIONS AGAINST ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR ON APPLICATION OF CERTAIN SOCIAL LANDLORDS
      3.30 pm
      The Minister for Housing and Planning (Keith Hill): I beg to move amendment No. 10, in page 10, line 28, leave out 'immoral and'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 11 and 21 to 23.
      Keith Hill: I also hope to be brief in dealing with this small group of amendments. I want to begin, however, by thanking my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for her kind words of welcome, and to reciprocate by congratulating her on her well-merited appointment. It is also a pleasure to be working with my hon. Friend the Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety. I congratulate her on her promotion, too. They are two glittering stars in the firmament of the parliamentary Labour party.
      Amendments Nos. 10, 11, 21 and 22 deal with the question of immorality. Specifically, it is proposed that the immoral use of premises, as distinct from unlawful use of premises, should be removed as a ground for obtaining an injunction or a demotion. I am grateful to the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) for bringing this to the Government's attention in Committee. I am entirely in agreement with him that there is no necessary link between immorality and either antisocial behaviour or illegality, and it is misleading to imply one. Immorality per se is irrelevant to what the Bill seeks to achieve.
      We do not think that it is appropriate that injunctions or demotion orders intended to prevent antisocial behaviour should be used to control the use of premises where no illegal activity is taking place and no nuisance is being caused. It is difficult to see what is antisocial in that situation. If illegality or nuisance begins, an injunction under clause 13 or a demotion order under clause 14 can be obtained without the need for any judgments of morality. Amendment No. 23 is a technical amendment to provide consistency in the way that the Bill deals with matters of Welsh devolution. We are deleting subsection (2) of clause 17 to bring it into line with clause 55.
      Mr. James Paice: I welcome the new Minister for Housing and Planning. I was remiss in not referring to him in my earlier remarks, and he rightly chided me privately for that. I

      917
      congratulate him on his promotion—I suppose that that is what it is—and certainly on his new position in the Government. Whether he has as much power as he had as Deputy Chief Whip I shall leave for others to judge. It is ironic, of course, that the previous Minister, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), has gone to the job that the new Minister for Housing and Planning vacated.
      Mr. Bercow: I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that the Minister took a sensible approach to the Government's new clauses and amendments. Will he agree, however, that after a period of Trappist silence from the new Minister, which was no doubt put to good effect on behalf of the Government machine, it is extremely welcome that we shall once again hear his mellifluous tones and his gladiatorial approach to political debate?
      Mr. Paice: I am sure that my hon. Friend, with his immense command of vocabulary, has encapsulated the views of many of us. I smile inwardly at the presence on the Front Bench of the new Minister for Housing and Planning, together with the new Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety, whom I assume is pleased that her colleague has not been put in charge of cycling, bearing in mind a faux pas that he made previously in the House, which was probably the cause of the period of Trappist silence to which he was consigned. Clearly, however, he has paid his penance.
      I am grateful to the Minister for Housing and Planning for his kind words about the amendments, which, as he said, arise from almost identical amendments that I moved in Committee. I remind hon. Members of the words used in Committee by the then Under-Secretary, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), when he spoke to my amendments. He said:
      "Currently, I am not persuaded by my own briefing"—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 13 May 2003; c. 229.]
      There were several occasions on which he and the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East made similar statements. The result of the openness and honesty displayed by those Ministers is that several welcome amendments and new clauses, such as those in this group, have been tabled.
      I shall not reprise the arguments that the Minister for Housing and Planning made—I made them at slightly more length in Committee. It is wrong to confuse antisocial behaviour with immorality. Immorality is based on a personal judgment and the concept moves with the times. We know from other aspects of legislation that courts have great difficulty defining immorality, so we do not want to bestow that problem on the Bill. The Bill is all about addressing nuisance and annoyance, which are clearly defined in law, so I am grateful that the Government have recognised that those concepts should not be confused with the wholly different concept of immorality.
      We want to discuss other issues before the first knife falls, so I shall leave my remarks at that, except to repeat my welcome and obvious support for the Government amendments.
      Mr. Allen: I welcome my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning to the Front Bench and I ask him
      918
      to bear one thing in mind. I am sure that it is a common phenomenon for hon. Members of all parties to talk to people on council estates who say, "You know, the old rent book used to be very clear. The old rent man used to come round and tell us exactly the duties that we had and correct us when the garden was untidy." In a way, the drift of policy to protect private tenants especially, has gone a little too far the other way.
      I say with the greatest respect to my hon. Friend—I hope that he will consider this although not necessarily react to it at the Dispatch Box—that many councils, including mine, would prefer to have the ability to use a tighter tenancy agreement. In order to achieve that, the Government must stand behind councils rather than continuing what is perhaps a trend of the past 30 years of always looking after the individual rights of a specific tenant. Sadly, people who use their rights are often those who abuse the rights of everyone else in the community. I am not saying that we need to return to a pre-Rachmanite regime, but as the Bill moves to the other place, will my hon. Friend consider the possibility of councils being able to toughen up their tenancy agreements so that they may take speedy action against some of the families that plague all our constituents?
      Matthew Green: I would add my congratulations to the Minister for Housing and Planning, but I did so during Question Time last week. He is unfortunate to be promoted into his job only to discover that he is midway through two Bills, or even three. Even being midway through one Bill would be unfortunate.
      I add Liberal Democrat support to the amendments—we have added our names to them—for the reasons outlined by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) and the Minister. We support the removal of the word "immoral". It was inappropriate and had nothing at all to do with a Bill on antisocial behaviour. I think that the word slipped in because such wording has been used in Bills for several years and there is a tendency to keep rolling on with the same set of words. It is just as well that the problem has been brought to book and I hope that that will prevent the wording from being rolled out in future Bills.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 11, in page 10, line 31, leave out 'immoral or'.—[Keith Hill.]
      Keith Hill: I beg to move amendment No. 12, in page 11, line 4, at end insert—
      '153D Injunction against breach of tenancy agreement

      (1)This section applies if a relevant landlord applies for an injunction against a tenant in respect of the breach or anticipated breach of a tenancy agreement on the grounds that the tenant—

      (a) is engaging or threatening to engage in conduct that is capable of causing nuisance or annoyance to any person, or

      (b) is allowing, inciting or encouraging any other person to engage or threaten to engage in such conduct.

      (2) The court may proceed under subsection (3) or (4) if it is satisfied—

      (a) that the conduct includes the use or threatened use of violence, or

      (b) that there is a significant risk of harm to any person.

      919

      (3) The court may include in the injunction a provision prohibiting the person in respect of whom it is granted from entering or being in—

      (a) any premises specified in the injunction;

      (b) any area specified in the injunction.

      (4) The court may attach a power of arrest to any provision of the injunction.

      (5) Tenancy agreement includes any agreement for the occupation of residential accommodation owned or managed by a relevant landlord.'.

      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments Nos. 13 to 20.
      Amendment No. 75, in page 45, line 39, schedule 1, leave out from 'possession' to end of line 40 and insert
      'if it is satisfied

      (a) that conduct under section 153A or 153B of the Housing Act 1996 has taken place since the making of the demotion order and

      (b) that the procedure under sections 143E and 143F has been followed.

      Amendment No. 61, in page 46, line 9, schedule 1, at end insert—
      'including evidence of further conduct under section 153A or section 153B of the Housing Act 1996 which has taken place since the making of the demotion order.'.
      Keith Hill: I again offer my thanks to colleagues on both sides of the House who have given me such a warm welcome. It is good to be back. I hope that we will proceed in the same sweet harmonies that prevailed on earlier Government amendments, but that may not be the case. However, I shall at least endeavour to persuade the House of the merits of these amendments.
      Clause 13 provides social landlords with powers to apply for injunctions to prevent anyone acting antisocially towards their tenants or other residents, staff or anyone lawfully in the locality of their housing accommodation. They are strong powers and may be used against any person including private tenants and owner-occupiers. That includes former tenants who have exercised the right to buy.
      Laura Moffatt: Hear, hear.
      Keith Hill: I agree with that expression of support. That aspect of the Bill has not yet received the attention it merits and will receive a warm welcome in council estates up and down the land.
      The measures combat antisocial behaviour that is related to the management of the social landlord's stock. They do not give social landlords a wider role to protect any person from antisocial behaviour by any person in any circumstance. There has to be at least an indirect link with the landlord's management of its housing accommodation, although there does not have to be a link with any one particular premises as required by section 152 of the Housing Act 1996.
      However, a landlord might reasonably want to take action against one of its tenants who had acted antisocially in a wider range of circumstances than if the antisocial behaviour were committed by a non-tenant. It
      920
      is important that rights and responsibilities are negotiated between the landlord and tenant. Amendment No. 12 allows them to do that. To revert to the observation made by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), he will find in the provisions the opportunity to strengthen tenancy agreements. The Government desire that to be a general phenomenon. It only addresses part of the argument that he presented, but at least it is a part. I shall bear in mind his other observations.
      By tenancy agreement I mean any agreement for the occupation of residential accommodation owned or managed by the landlord including, for example, long leases acquired under the right-to-buy legislation. The amendment strengthens the enforceability of such agreements in relation to antisocial behaviour. Many social landlords include specific clauses in their tenancy agreements on antisocial behaviour. Those may go beyond what is covered in clause 13. For example, local authority tenancies may forbid tenants from harassing any member of council staff, in any location, regardless of whether they are employed in connection with the management of its stock.
      Social landlords can already obtain an injunction to prohibit a breach or anticipated breach of a tenancy agreement. The amendment defines tenancy agreement more widely and allows a power of arrest or exclusion to be attached to an injunction if there is actual or threatened antisocial behaviour and the use or threat of violence, or the risk of significant harm to any person. That includes circumstances in which the tenant is allowing, inciting or encouraging antisocial behaviour by someone else. I repeat that these are strong powers and they will not be granted lightly by the courts, but where they are appropriate and necessary, they will significantly enhance the protection of the community.
      Mr. Allen: I very much welcome the powers and know that they will be well received in constituencies up and down the land. It is a great credit to the Government that they have introduced them.
      The powers allow an injunction to be made and further prosecution if that is breached. One point that I was making to my hon. Friend the Minister was that it would be useful to consider the automaticity—the automatic nature—of a breach of a tenancy agreement so that consequences follow immediately rather than waiting for a document or dossier to be built up that can be taken to court. That would help to avoid the intimidation of witnesses. If it is there in black and white on the tenancy agreement, but someone breaks that agreement, certain things might follow automatically. The provision does not allow for that, but I urge my hon. Friend to see whether the good work in the clause can be taken a stage further.
      3.45 pm
      Keith Hill: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), who has obviously devoted a great deal of thought to these matters. I am interested in the concept of a rolling programme in relation to tenancy agreements. My hon. Friend has advanced a serious proposition, and the Government will give it careful consideration.

      921
      Government amendments Nos. 13, 14 and 16 to 20 are necessary consequential amendments, which give effect to new section 153D of the Housing Act 1996. Government amendment No. 15 is a technical amendment that clarifies the question of who is regarded as the legal owner of a property. It makes it clear that a social landlord is an owner if their original lease of the accommodation was for longer than three years and not, as currently stated, if the unexpired period of the lease is for longer than three years. I found that a matter of some confusion, so it may be for the benefit of the House if I provide brief clarification. Any person who has a lease of three years or more will be regarded under the Bill as an owner. The owner is the landlord—in other words, the person who can take out an injunction. Someone with a lease of less than three years is identified as a business tenant. I hope that that added clarification is as helpful to the House as it was to me.
      My predecessor, the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), to whom I pay tribute to for his excellent work in Committee and in many other areas of government, said in Committee that he would happily look again at the question of whether three years rather than one year was the correct length of time. I have considered that, and am satisfied that three years is the correct length. Even if a social landlord is not classified as the owner of a particular property, they will still be the manager, and hence able to use the powers in clause 13.
      I turn to amendments Nos. 61 and 75, which were tabled by the Opposition and have the aim of undermining the purpose of the tenancy demotion procedure. They would increase demoted tenants' security of tenure, and would remove the benefits of speed and landlord control of the process, which the demotion procedure is intended to provide. They seek to limit the circumstances in which a landlord may seek to end a demoted tenancy to cases where there is evidence of antisocial behaviour after the order was granted. Eviction from a demoted tenancy is designed to be swifter and easier than eviction from secure tenancies, and is modelled on the procedure for local authority introductory tenancies that was recently approved by the courts as being compliant with the European convention on human rights.
      By the time a tenant has been demoted, the landlord and the tenant have both had their day in court. Evidence has been provided, and witnesses have attended. The amendments would effectively require another full-scale court hearing. There would be costs to the landlord and delays for those who are suffering from the antisocial behaviour, and it may not be easy to persuade witnesses to come back a second time. The demotion order allows landlords to give tenants one last chance, but it also allows them to take swift action if the antisocial behaviour is not addressed. The demotion order will give the tenant and landlord the opportunity for rehabilitation work. However, if that last chance fails, landlords should not be required to justify their own actions again at a further court hearing.
      Matthew Green: The Minister spoke about what will happen if that sanction fails, but there is nothing in the Bill about failure after a demoted tenancy is granted. If
      922
      someone is given a demoted tenancy, the landlord can move for repossession at any point without giving any reasons whatever. That is the problem with the Bill.
      Keith Hill: That is not the case. The procedure for ending a demoted tenancy is based, as I said, on the procedure for ending an introductory tenancy. The decision is taken by the landlord, following a process that is already statutory, and is followed by a possession order granted by the court. The tenant will have the right to an internal review of the landlord's decision. The arrangements for the termination of a demoted tenancy will mirror the existing arrangements for the termination of introductory tenancies.
      I understand the hon. Gentleman's concerns. I remind him that the landlord will inform the tenant of his intention to terminate the tenancy. The tenant will have the right to appear before a review panel, which it is intended should include a senior council officer not involved in the initial demotion procedure. Ultimately, the tenant will have the right to take the proposed eviction to judicial review, but at the possession hearing, the court will consider only whether the appropriate procedure has been followed, not the facts upon which the landlord's decision was based or the merits of the case. Without those reassurances, the demotion order would be a less attractive procedure and it would encourage more landlords to apply for a possession order at the first opportunity.
      Mr. Allen: To put the matter in perspective, we are not speaking of random searches of council estates and picking on people. People who have got to this stage have probably been highly disruptive, disturbed the neighbourhood and made their neighbours' life hell. They have already had at least one chance. The problem is not that the process is too fast, but that it may be too protracted. Witnesses who have come forward, often at great expense, bolstered by housing officers, police officers and so on, may be asked to come to court two or three times, have their windows put in, have acid poured on their car and so on. We have lived with such problems, and I am glad that my hon. Friend is moving swiftly to tackle them.
      Keith Hill: It is beginning to sound like a love-in between me and my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North. I entirely agree with his observations, which are as perceptive as ever. As he says, we have all been there, as constituency Members of Parliament. In my experience as a constituency Member of Parliament, the landlord is usually extremely reluctant to move to the measures that I described.
      Of course, the landlord is aware of the implications of the ending of any form of tenancy and the implications for the family, but the procedure will prevent precipitate action to move towards eviction. It will offer—I reiterate that in my experience this is the desire of most housing managers—the opportunity for a process of rehabilitation to try to bring the individuals concerned back into civic society. That is the name of the game. We need to restore a sense of civic society, and on occasion we must do that by sanction.

      923
      These are reasonable proposals. They meet the wishes expressed overwhelmingly by the social landlord sector in consultation. The Government have no hesitation in moving amendments Nos. 12 to 20 and in urging Opposition Members to withdraw amendments Nos. 75 and 61.
      Mr. Paice: I shall briefly refer to the Government amendments, before dealing with the two that we tabled, to which the Minister devoted some time. Government amendments Nos. 12, 13 and 14 and the consequential amendments, as the hon. Gentleman said, are draconian, but they are right and wholly supportable. It is necessary to provide for those injunctions. I will not detain the House further on those, except to reiterate our support.
      I welcome Government amendment No. 15, because as the Minister said, it clarifies who is a landlord. The hon. Gentleman referred to the undertaking given by the now Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), to go away and consider the points that I made in Committee concerning the three-year period. The question that I raised was not whether that period was right or wrong; it had much more to do with the issue with which the amendment deals—whether there were three years still to run. By making it clear that the period was initially three years and that there is no such period still to run, which is what the Bill currently says, the Minister has dealt with the issue. I welcome the amendment, which is obviously another example of the success of my powers of persuasion, for which I shall take credit.
      On amendments Nos. 75 and 61, in the spirit of good will, I say to the Minister that it is a calumny to suggest that the Opposition are trying to undermine the legislation. He is absolutely right to say that antisocial behaviour is a major problem in respect of tenants of social landlords. All of us have encountered that problem to a greater or lesser extent in our constituencies. The hon. Gentleman is also right that action needs to be taken, and there is no difference between my party and the Government on that need, so we do not intend or seek to undermine the Bill.
      The point of the amendments is as follows. As the Bill is currently drafted, and as the Minister obviously wishes to maintain it, once a demotion order is achieved, a landlord will be able to serve proceedings for possession. He will have to give his reasons, and the Minister rightly said—this is set out in the Bill—that the tenant can seek a review. However, he went on to speak about review panels, independence and so on, none of which feature in the Bill. We must make a judgment on the basis of what the Bill contains. As I read it, in the hands of a landlord who wishes to be unscrupulous, a demotion order could effectively be an eviction order, and there is virtually nothing to prevent a landlord from moving from a demotion order straight to eviction.
      All that we are seeking to achieve in the amendments is to provide the second chance to which the Minister and indeed the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) referred, and which we endorse. When a tenant of a social landlord allows or commits antisocial
      924
      behaviour, they should be hit with a hard sanction, and we accept that demotion orders are a tough sanction. However, they should be given a chance to learn as a result of the action that is taken and not commit such behaviour again, and it appears that the Bill does not currently provide that second chance. All that we are seeking is to ensure that if the landlord wishes to go for possession, he must do so because the tenant has taken no notice of the initial sanction that the demotion order represents.
      That is the simple gist of our amendments and the reason why we have tabled them. I do not want to undermine the Bill and I certainly want landlords to be able to take action against tenants who continue to allow or commit unsocial behaviour. However, I do not want to give free licence to the recognised chance of unscrupulous social landlords using the provisions in a way that neither the Minister nor I wish them to be used.
      Matthew Green: I shall try to be brief.
      The Liberal Democrats reluctantly accept that the Government were right to table Government amendment No. 12 and the other Government amendments, but I should like to reiterate the point made by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice). Under the Bill as it is currently framed, a couple with an unruly teenage son who has been behaving antisocially may end up with a demoted tenancy, but if the son leaves home and the couple get into rent arrears because one of them has lost a job or for some other reason, they can be fast-tracked for eviction under the demoted tenancy because of those arrears, despite the fact that the problem in respect of which they were given the demoted tenancy has gone completely.
      The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire was right to make that point, which we have also tried to raise, although I accept it has been made in the Conservative amendments. I hope that the Minister will address the issue and ensure that when somebody is evicted after a demoted tenancy has been issued, it is for the same reason in respect of which they were given the demoted tenancy in the first place.
      Keith Hill: Let me say to the hon. Members for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) and for Ludlow (Matthew Green) that I understand the seriousness of the points that they make. I shall certainly bear in mind the observation made by the hon. Member for Ludlow about the consistency of the basis of a termination of a demoted tenancy.
      4 pm
      Although I understand the concerns about the precipitate action of unscrupulous landlords against tenants, broadly speaking, in my experience, unscrupulous landlords are more often to be found in the private sector than in the social housing sector, but that is a matter for other legislation. The effect of the amendments would be to take cases back to the courts, with all the disadvantages in terms of witnesses, delay and cost implications for the local authority.

      925
      I hope that the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire will take it from me that the Government intend that the rules governing the termination of demoted tenancies should be those that apply to the termination of introductory tenancies. The regulations will mirror those provisions. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not press his amendment and that the House will support the Government's amendments.
      Amendment agreed to.
      It being one and three quarter hours after the commencement of proceedings on the programme motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to Order [this day.]
      Amendments made: No. 13, in page 11, line 6, leave out '153C' and insert '153D'.
      No. 14, in page 11, line 27, leave out from 'landlord' to end of line 29 and insert
      'for the purposes of section 153D'.
      No. 15, in page 11, line 40, leave out from 'lease' to end of line 41 and insert
      'which (when granted) was for a term of not less than three years'.
      No. 16, in page 12, line 7, after '153C(3)', insert 'or 153D(4)'.
      No. 17, in page 12, line 12, after '153C(3)', insert 'or 153D(4)'.
      No. 18, in page 12, line 14, after '153C(3)', insert 'or 153D(4)'.
      No. 19, in page 12, line 17, after '153C(3)', insert 'or 153 D(4)'.
      No. 20, in page 12, line 19, after '153C(3)', insert 'or 153D(4)'.—[Mr. Heppell.]

    Clause 14

      SECURITY OF TENURE: ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR
      Amendments made: No. 21, in page 13, line 17, leave out 'immoral or'.
      No. 22, in page 14, line 18, leave out 'immoral or'.—[Mr. Heppell.]

    Clause 17
      DEVOLUTION: WALES
      Amendment made: No. 23, in page 16, line 24, leave out subsection (2).—[Mr. Heppell.]
    Clause 18

      PARENTING CONTRACTS IN CASES OF EXCLUSION FROM SCHOOL OR TRUANCY
      Amendments made: No. 1, in page 16, line 32, leave out from 'permanently' to end of line 34.
      No. 41, in page 17, line 8, after 'attend' and insert 'a'.
      No. 42, in page 17, line 8, leave out 'sessions' and insert 'programme'.—[Mr. Heppell.]

    Clause 19

      PARENTING ORDERS IN CASES OF EXCLUSION FROM SCHOOL
      Amendments made: No. 43, in page 17, line 37, leave out 'sessions' and insert 'programme'.
      No. 44, in page 17, line 42, at end insert—
      '(6) A counselling or guidance programme which a parent is required to attend by virtue of subsection (4)(b) may be or include a residential course but only if the court is satisfied that the following two conditions are fulfilled.
      (7) The first condition is that the attendance of the parent at a residential course is likely to be more effective than his attendance at a nonresidential course in improving the behaviour of the pupil.
      (8) The second condition is that any interference with family life which is likely to result from the attendance of the parent at a residential course is proportionate in all the circumstances:— [Mr. Heppell.]

    Clause 20

      PARENTING ORDERS: SUPPLEMENTAL
      Amendment made: No. 45, in page 18, line 16, leave out from 'make' to end of line 18 and insert
      'provision as to how the costs associated with the requirements of parenting orders under section 19 (including the costs of providing counselling or guidance programmes) are to be borne'.—[Mr. Heppell.]

    Clause 23
      INTERPRETATION
      Amendment made: No. 35, in page 22, leave out line 18.—[Mr. Heppell.]
    Clause 24
      PARENTING CONTRACTS IN RESPECT OF CRIMINAL CONDUCT AND ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR
      Amendment made: No. 46, in page 22, line 38, after 'attend' insert 'a'.—[Mr. Heppell.]
    Clause 25

      PARENTING ORDERS IN RESPECT OF CRIMNAL CONDUCT AND ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR
      Amendment made: No. 49, in page 23, line 25, at end insert—
      '(6) A counselling or guidance programme which a parent is required to attend by virtue of subsection (4)(b) may be or include a residential course but only if the court is satisfied that the following two conditions are fulfilled.
      (7) The first condition is that the attendance of the parent at a residential course is likely to be more effective than his attendance at a nonresidential course in preventing the child or young person from engaging in further criminal conduct or further antisocial behaviour.
      (8) The second condition is that any interference with family life which is likely to result from the attendance of the parent at a residential course is proportionate in all the circumstances.'—[Mr. Heppell.]

    Clause 28

      INTERPRETATION
      Amendments made: No. 36, in page 24, leave out line 22.
      No. 37, in page 24, line 25, at end insert—
      '(2) In section 38(4) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c.37) (meaning of "youth justice services") after paragraph (e) insert—
      "(ee) the performance by youth offending teams and members of youth offending teams of functions under sections 24 to 26 of the Antisocial Behaviour Act 2003,".'.—[Mr. Heppell.]
      New Clause 8—Parenting Orders under the 1998 Act—
      '(1) Section 8 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c. 37) is amended as follows.
      (2) For subsections (4) and (5) substitute—
      "(4) A parenting order is an order which requires the parent—

      (a) to comply, for a period not exceeding twelve months, with such requirements as are specified in the order, and

      (b) subject to subsection (5) below, to attend, for a concurrent period not exceeding three months, such counselling or guidance programme as may be specified in directions given by the responsible officer.

      (5) A parenting order may, but need not, include such a requirement as is mentioned in subsection (4)(b) above in any case where a parenting order under this section or any other enactment has been made in respect of the parent on a previous occasion."
      (3) After subsection (7) insert—
      "(7A) A counselling or guidance programme which a parent is required to attend by virtue of subsection (4)(b) above may be or include a residential course but only if the court is satisfied—

      (a) that the attendance of the parent at a residential course is likely to be more effective than his attendance at a nonresidential course in preventing any such repetition or, as the case may be, the commission of any such further offence, and

      (b) that any interference with family life which is likely to result from the attendance of the parent at a residential course is proportionate in all the circumstances.".'.—[Mr. Heppell.]

      Brought up, read the First and Second Times, and added to the Bill.

    Clause 29

      DISPERSAL OF GROUPS AND REMOVAL OF PERSONS UNDER 16 TO THEIR PLACE OF RESIDENCE
      Simon Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 82, in page 24, line 28, leave out Clause 29.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 53, in page 24, leave out lines 35 to 37.
      Amendment No. 54, in page 24, line 38, leave out subsection (2).
      Amendment No. 55, in page 25, line 6, leave out first 'relevant' and insert 'immediate'.
      Amendment No. 58, in page 25, line 6, leave out second 'relevant' and insert 'immediate'.
      Government amendment No. 38.
      Amendment No. 56, in page 25, line 10, leave out first 'relevant' and insert 'immediate'.
      Amendment No. 57, in page 25, line 10, leave out second 'relevant' and insert 'immediate'.
      Government amendment No. 39.
      Amendment No. 59, in page 25, line 25, leave out 'in the relevant locality'.
      Amendment No. 76, in page 25, line 31, leave out
      'if removed to that place'
      and insert
      'if that person remained in that place to which he was removed to'.
      Amendment No. 60, in page 25, line 36, leave out Clause 30.
      Amendment No. 83, in page 26, line 28, leave out Clause 31.
      Amendment No. 84, in page 27, line 1, leave out Clause 32.
      Amendment No. 85, in page 27, line 25, leave out Clause 33.
      Amendment No. 86, in page 28, line 1, leave out Clause 34.
      Government amendment No. 40.
      Amendment No. 87, in page 28, line 11, leave out Clause 35.
      Simon Hughes: As well as amendment No. 82, which is in my name and the names of my hon. Friends, in this selection there is a group of other amendments in our name—amendments Nos. 83, 84, 85, 86 and 87. There is one amendment that is jointly in our name and that of Conservative Front Benchers—amendment No. 60. Amendments Nos. 53 to 59 are Conservative amendments that I will leave to Conservative colleagues to address specifically. There are, by my calculation, three Government amendments in the group— amendments Nos. 38, 39 and 40—which are relatively minor amendments to do with locality. The last one is a drafting amendment. Amendment No. 76 is a Conservative amendment that addresses one of the matters that was picked up in the report published by the Joint Committee on Human Rights the other day.
      As Ministers will know, this is a significant part of the Bill for my colleagues and me. Indeed, it is significant by any definition, and was flagged up as such in the report on the Anti-Social Behaviour Bill by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. We give thanks to the Committee for its work and for its 13th report, which has helped inform this debate.
      There might be time for three debates in the next hour and a half, and I hope that we do, indeed, have time for all of them. The first deals with clause 29, which is in part 4 of the Bill, under the heading "Dispersal of groups, etc.". Whether, at the end of the day, we have to have the word "etc." in the title is a matter that we can no doubt debate; part 4 deals with the dispersal of groups. The title of clause 29 is fairly categorical in terms of the issue that we are debating: it is "Dispersal of groups and removal of persons under 16 to their place of residence".
      There was some uncertainty on Second Reading but, to be fair to the Government, it is now clear that the measure contains two proposals. One relates to a power to disperse groups of two or more people, who can be of any age, in certain circumstances. A separate power relates to the removal of under-16s. I want to discuss both those powers, and to signal to the House that we have strong reasons for believing that they are

      929
      unnecessary and inappropriate; that they go far too wide; that they probably break the law; and that they will be positively unhelpful in trying to deal with antisocial behaviour. I should say that there is a point of common agreement in all parts of the House that, when behaviour becomes threatening, intimidating or harassing, and when people of any age intervene in the lives of other people to make their lives a misery, it is unacceptable.
      Like me, the new Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing, and Community Safety represents an inner-city seat. My hon. Friends the Members for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke) and for Ludlow (Matthew Green)—who served on the Standing Committee—represent very different seats. One has a large seaside resort with a rural hinterland; the other has a beautiful rural area with a large county town and smaller towns and villages. None of us, however, is immune to the fact that there are people of all ages—although they are generally under 40—who can behave in an antisocial way from time to time.
      There is a question as to what antisocial behaviour is, and the Joint Committee on Human Rights has suggested that we should be careful about how we define it. The Liberal Democrats have a fundamental objection to the way in which the Government have drafted this part of the Bill. In Committee, my hon. Friends sought to persuade the Committee to amend the Bill. Had they been able to do so, our fundamental objections would, to be honest, have gone away, because we should have taken out the great iniquity of the drafting. I hope that I can now persuade the House that, as presently drafted, the Bill goes much too far in two respects.
      I shall deal later with clause 29(6), which relates to the power to remove young people. Clause 29(1) states:
      "This section applies where a relevant officer has reasonable grounds for believing—
      (a) that any members of the public have been intimidated, harassed, alarmed or distressed"—
      those are the four conditions that a person can be judged to be in—
      "as a result of"—
      the precondition that—
      "the presence or behaviour of groups of two or more persons in public places in any locality in his police area … and"—
      there is a second precondition that—
      "(b) that anti-social behaviour is a significant and persistent problem in the relevant locality."
      There must, therefore, have been a finding that antisocial behaviour was a "significant and persistent problem".
      That will immediately lead to the difficulty—although it is not the biggest difficulty—of determining what the locality is. Could it, for example, be the whole of the London borough of Southwark, in the case of my constituency, or the whole of the metropolitan borough of Salford, in the case of the Minister's? Could it be one of the places in a borough, such as the Poole part of the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole, or a ward, a council estate or a street? That has not been sorted out. There may be guidelines, but if there had been persistent antisocial
      930
      behaviour in part of the London borough of Southwark, which I know best, that may be enough for someone to be covered by the second precondition.
      Jonathan Shaw: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Simon Hughes: Let me make the case, and I shall give way in a second.
      My judgment is—I am being absolutely honest about this—that it is probably possible to find enough antisocial behaviour to get over the first threshold in any constituency in the United Kingdom. Most constituencies contain areas in which there are problems, and if they occur more than once or a few times, they could be said to be persistent. The difficulty comes when there is a trigger that can suddenly have a consequence for a wide area even though the problem has an impact on only a small area.
      Jonathan Shaw: The hon. Gentleman is making a reasonable point about defining an area, but there should be guidance. Area crime prevention partnerships could identify problem areas. As well as the police, other agencies and individuals that make up those partnerships could define the locality when there is a particular problem in their area, and they could give community constables the power to act.
      Simon Hughes: That is true, although we do not have those definitions as yet. The hon. Gentleman will remember that the Labour Government introduced, and Parliament legislated for, the power to place curfews over areas designated either by the local authority or by the police. As we know, no such curfew areas have yet been designated, although the powers have been available for some years
      Jonathan Shaw: That is different.
      Simon Hughes: It is different, but it is the same concept. Authorities were given the power suddenly to intervene on anyone who came within the designated curfew area. Under this Bill, once the area has been designated, the authorities will be allowed suddenly to act in relation to people in the area. The arguments do not stand on their own: they stand together. The major objection to this provision is that, because of some previous behaviour by some, we will be punishing what may be perfectly respectable behaviour by many. By acting on the situation in the past, when there may have been antisocial behaviour by a few, we may infringe the civil liberties of a large number of people.
      I shall explain why that would be the consequence of the Bill and why the hon. Gentleman, on reflection, may decide that he should not support this provision. Once the location issue has been sorted out, what does the Bill provide? It says that all that is needed is for a relevant officer to have reasonable grounds for believing that any members of the public—it could be a member or two members—have been alarmed or distressed as a result of not just the behaviour but the presence of groups of two or more people.

      931
      My hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow put the point clearly in Committee. If members of the public have been intimidated, harassed or alarmed as a result of the behaviour of groups of people, action could reasonably follow, but it is not reasonable to provide that when any members of the public may have been alarmed or distressed, however unreasonably, by the presence of two or more people, the authorities can go in.
      4.15 pm
      Let me tell the hon. Gentleman why the provision is completely unacceptable. It means that, if someone who for no good reason does not like people hanging around at the bus stop, gets into a state about people hanging around the park bench or is troubled and anxious distressed—because a group of people come with their bikes, mountain bikes, motor bikes or scooters and gather at the village pond or at the bottom of the stairwell, that is sufficient—[Interruption.] Yes, it is. It is sufficient that members of the public are distressed or alarmed as a result of the presence of groups of two or more persons. There does not have to be any behaviour at all, let alone antisocial behaviour. They just have to be there.
      My colleagues and I will not sign up to legislation that allows the perception of one person, the views of one person or the reaction of a group of people to determine who shall be on our streets, in our parks or at our bus shelters. The reality is that the provision will most often be used—not necessarily always—by groups of adults who do not like young people hanging around outside somewhere near them. Sometimes they may go further than that. They may use it because of prejudice, because of the hairstyles of a group of people, or because of what they do, or because of their colour —
      Shona McIsaac: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Simon Hughes: I will in a second but I hope that the hon. Lady and everyone else will put it on the record that it would be unacceptable, in a country that prides itself on civil liberties, as the Joint Committee on Human Rights makes clear, to legislate to prevent people from being present in our public places if their presence alone causes distress to someone else. I hope that she will endorse that.
      Shona McIsaac: Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that, for the provision to apply, not only must people be alarmed and distressed, but antisocial behaviour must be a significant and persistent problem in the relevant locality, as designated by a senior police officer? Does he accept that the provision is not about moving on people who are doing nothing wrong but about dealing with areas that are plagued by antisocial behaviour? He wishes to delete the provisions that deal with that issue.
      Simon Hughes: I am sorry that the hon. Lady cannot read the Bill well and did not listen to what I said clearly. She must take away her prejudices and address the legislation that the Government have put before the House. I have dealt with the issue clearly and if she just
      932
      listens she may be able to correct her views and we may reach some agreement. As I made clear about five minutes ago, there has to be a significant and persistent problem of antisocial behaviour for the provision to apply, but just because there has been such behaviour before, that is not a reason for people whose mere presence causes alarm or distress to others to be dealt with in that way. They could be sent to prison for three months if they contravened a direction from the officer to move on.
      I know the hon. Lady's constituency quite well. I was on holiday in Cleethorpes a couple of summers ago. Let us imagine that in a park in Cleethorpes, or in Grimsby, there had been some persistent antisocial behaviour. Let us imagine that there had been some trouble in those places, that a week or two later the authorisation was given, that there were some young people hanging around and that people kept on phoning the police from houses across the road from the park, saying that they were troubled, distressed and concerned that those 16-year-olds were hanging around in the park. That would be sufficient for the police to be able to disperse that group, and that would be unacceptable. One should respond to behaviour, not presence, and on the basis of what people do, not of what others think that they might do. Nor should one respond on the basis of the reactions of others to the fact that such people are present.
      That is why the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which is chaired by a colleague of the hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) and does not have a Liberal Democrat majority, asked the House to consider whether these provisions breach our international legal requirements in law. If the hon. Lady has taken the trouble, as I hope she has, to talk to bodies such as the National Youth Agency, she will have discovered that they are strongly opposed to these provisions.
      Mr. Adrian Bailey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Simon Hughes: Not just yet. If the hon. Lady had talked to the coalition of people who deal with children's and young people's issues—the National Children's Bureau and various other organisations—she would have discovered that they are strongly opposed to these provisions. If she had talked to the Association of Chief Police Officers, she would realise that it, too, has significant concerns about them. If she had talked to the Youth Justice Board, she would realise that the way to deal with the sort of people whom she may want to prevent from continuing to be antisocial—if that is what they have been—is not through this approach at all.
      Will coming in heavy with police officers and seeking to move on youngsters—particularly youngsters—who are doing nothing wrong, just because others have been doing something wrong, improve relations between the police and young people? It certainly will not. Will it improve respect for the police? It certainly will not. Will it improve behaviour in the community? It certainly will not. Will it improve respect from young people for those who made the complaint? It certainly will not. The hon. Lady should know that the alternative provisions and proactive, positive work with young people that the

      933
      Youth Justice Board has been largely responsible for initiating have been far more effective in dealing with antisocial behaviour and youth crime, as I hope Ministers realise. If she does not know that, I invite her to talk to that body—a body that her Government set up. And I commend unreservedly the work done by Lord Warner, the former chairman of the Youth Justice Board—he is now a Minister in the Lords—and his staff.
      I have sheaves of paper in front of me that set out the successful schemes that are a result of initiatives taken by the hon. Lady's Government. They have reduced antisocial behaviour and crime in many of our communities. One example is the summer splash programme in Avon and Somerset.
      Mr. Bailey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Simon Hughes: Yes, in a moment. Figures for summer 2002 show a reduction in street crime and robbery of 31 per cent. in those parts of the police authority that ran the scheme. That compares with an increase of 56 per cent. in areas where the scheme did not run. In south Yorkshire, the police authority of the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint), this type of crime fell last summer by 17 per cent. in areas that ran the scheme. That compares with an increase of 62 per cent. in areas that did not run it. Across all 10 summer splash areas, there was an overall reduction in the local crime rate of 5.2 per cent. between July and September.
      Colleagues and I have asked many questions on this issue, and the figures make it abundantly clear that what reduces antisocial behaviour is positive, proactive intervention with troublemakers and young people, not the heavy hand of the law in dealing with those who are doing nothing wrong.
      Mr. Bailey: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way—at last. I have followed his argument with some interest. If the police receive complaints from local residents about a group of young—or not so young—people with a known record of antisocial behaviour congregating in a particular area, I cannot understand why they should not have the right to disperse them, thereby relieving the prevailing tensions in the local community, just because those people happen not to be doing anything at that specific moment.
      Simon Hughes: If the hon. Gentleman does not understand that, he does not understand the Human Rights Act 1998, implemented by his Government, which enshrined a right of assembly in this country's domestic law that can be upheld in the courts. It applies to 16-year-olds as much as to the hon. Gentleman, and it applies to people who are not doing anything wrong.
      Mr. Bailey rose—
      Simon Hughes: I am not giving way for a second time. The hon. Gentleman needs to understand that, under this legislation, the police are not restricted to picking up people who have been convicted of offences before or people who may have been guilty of antisocial behaviour. No such restrictions can be found in the Bill. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will stick up for people's rights to behave normally, as they choose and with their
      934
      own freedom of expression, even if sometimes their presence causes other people some distress or alarm. The test should not be whether the hon. Gentleman is alarmed by three 17-year-olds coming down the street towards him; it should be whether there is a cause—
      Mr. Bailey rose—
      Jeremy Corbyn rose—
      Simon Hughes: I have already given way once and I am still dealing with the intervention of the hon. Member for West Bromwich, West (Mr. Bailey).
      The question should be whether those people are, because of their behaviour, causing the hon. Gentleman reasonably to be distressed or alarmed. If that is the case, having the power to intervene may be necessary. However, the police already have acres of legislation—passed by the present Government, the previous Government and the Government before that—to give them the power to deal with those circumstances. The police have a variety of crime and disorder legislation, common law—indeed, a bookful of legislation, which I shall give the hon. Gentleman to read over the weekend—at their disposal. The police already have preventive powers under public order legislation that allow them to intervene if they suspect a breach of the peace, if there is harassment or a threat. There is no need for more powers, when the current powers are not being used to the full.
      Jeremy Corbyn: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that no proof of evidence of previous behaviour is required of any suspected groups of people before a police officer or group of officers can come along and designate a place to be one of persistent nuisance, which then gives them the right to disperse the group?
      Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. Like me, he represents an inner city constituency where there are tensions, which sometimes lead to antisocial behaviour. However, we really cannot act on the basis of people's prejudice, or personal response to others. To take a controversial example, if a group of young middle eastern people walking along a street saw a gathering of some young Jewish people on the corner, it might be sufficient to trigger concern because they might feel distress or alarm. The young Jewish people might not have done anything, but the others could be distressed or alarmed because of their gathering—
      Mr. Bailey rose—
      Simon Hughes: No, the hon. Gentleman has not read his legislation, and he should not go through the Lobby voting in favour of legislation that does not say what he thinks it says. If the hon. Gentleman wants to go to his constituents and defend people being taken off the streets and, if they do not agree with it, being regarded as committing a criminal offence that could result in their going to prison for three months when they have done nothing wrong, let him defend it! We on the Liberal Democrat Benches will not defend that. We defend punishing the guilty, but not punishing the innocent. We defend combating prejudice, not pandering to it.

      935
      The hon. Gentleman must not go down the road of believing that going in, clearing the streets, moving people on and using the police to do it is the way to build good community relations. It is not, and anyone who knows what they are talking about knows that it is not. If the hon. Gentleman believes that that is the way to build a responsible next generation, I have to tell him that he is sorely misguided.
      I commend to the hon. Gentleman—and hope that, over the weekend, he will read—the public order digests that present all the current laws. I hope that he will tell us why, if it is such a good idea, a law on curfews has never been implemented. If he thinks that it is such a good idea, why do the police say that they would prefer to use existing crime and disorder legislation? Why do people who are involved in the splash projects, youth inclusion projects and many local schemes say that curfew law is the wrong way to deal with the problem? Why do people who deal in the frontline with young people's behaviour on the streets also say that it is the wrong way?
      4.30 pm
      I just want to make two more points on this proposal. I attended a meeting this morning at which officers from my local authority were making a presentation on developing the athletics track in Southwark park. One of the people from the national organisation representing athletics said to me—I did not prompt him to do so—"Go and tell people that the most useful thing that we can do for antisocial behaviour is to provide more sport, such as athletics and swimming." [Interruption.] Well, I give the Government credit, because they have done a lot, but they should do those things that the evidence proves work, not those things that risk only breeding resentment.
      Mr. Bailey: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way after all this time. I also have meetings in my constituency and the last few have been to open two sure start schemes designed to create supportive families and combat antisocial behaviour in the long term, and to open a Connexions office designed to help those in the 13 to 19-year-old age group. For him to pretend that the Government are using a one-club approach to this problem is a gross misrepresentation. These provisions will be a useful addition to all the other measures that the Government have instigated to combat antisocial behaviour, and he should acknowledge that.
      Simon Hughes: I just wish colleagues would listen to debates. I spent the first five minutes of my speech acknowledging the work of the Youth Justice Board, which was created by the Labour Government in their first term, including the work of the board's first chairman and the projects it has implemented. I have given credit for the good things that the Government have done, that have worked and that been shown to work.
      I have never argued that the Government take a one-club approach. I have never even used the phrase. The hon. Gentleman did not hear me say that, because it was not part of my argument. What I object to is a Big
      936
      Brother power to take people who have done nothing wrong, deprive them of their liberty and punish them just because they say, "I am sorry, but this is my street. I want to stay here, at this bus shelter or in this park. This is my place. Life at home in my flat on the 16th floor is not great, my parents don't look after me very well and I'd rather be here, with my mates in the fresh air. You tell me not to watch the television so much, and this is where I'd rather be."
      The argument is about standing up for young people. It was Edgar in "King Lear" who said, "stand up for bastards". I am standing up for young people. We should ask them what they want and whether they think that this would be a helpful power in the hands of the police. We should also ask those people who deal with young people every day and who work for the projects that the Government have funded. They will say that it is a bad idea. [Interruption.] Well, I have spoken to them and that is what they think.
      If hon. Members are not yet convinced, they should consider the report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights. It states, at paragraph 33:
      "We accept that these are important problems"—
      by which they mean antisocial behaviour—
      "in some areas. However, when we initially examined the Bill we wondered how the measures would in practice make it easier to deal with the problem than it is at the moment. The police already have extensive powers to deal with public order problems. There are many statutes conferring such powers, including the Public Order Act 1986, the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, and the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001. In addition, there is the common law power to take such steps as are necessary to prevent a reasonably apprehended and imminent breach of the peace. If the measures were of no more practical assistance than existing powers, it would be hard to say that they are necessary in a democratic society for the legitimate purposes."
      Those are not my words, but the words of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which has a Labour majority.
      The report also states:
      "When we raised this question, the Government replied that the proposed powers would not be dependent on the commission of a criminal offence by any individual in the group, or on the apprehension of an imminent breach of the peace.
      These powers would be entirely directed to allow potentially threatening situations to be defused before any harm or disorder becomes imminent.
      We are concerned by this response in so far as it is used to justify the introduction of new powers which engage Convention rights. It suggests that the proposed powers are not intended to be a response to threats of serious disorder, but rather to"—
      Mr. Bailey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Simon Hughes: No. I am in the middle of quoting the report by the Human Rights Joint Committee, which has a Labour majority. The hon. Gentleman may not want to listen to my arguments, but he might listen to the Committee's unanimously approved arguments. The Committee stated:
      "It suggests that the proposed powers are not intended to be a response to threats of serious disorder, but rather to allow the police to manage people in public spaces in such a way as to prevent any more remote risk of minor disorder. It is true to say that this power does not currently exist in the law. There is a reason for that: it has heretofore been regarded as an unnecessary intrusion on the liberty of the individual to allow a constable to

      937
      give orders to someone where there is no threat of crime or danger to safety. We consider that the potential intrusion on private life and liberty is so extensive and the benefits in any case likely to be so speculative that it might be difficult to establish (either in general or in specific cases) that the powers granted under clause 29 of the Bill will or would be used only when it was proportionate to a pressing social need."
      The final sentence in that quotation is printed in bold type in the report.
      Mr. Bailey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Simon Hughes: I hope that the hon. Gentleman has been listening this time.
      Mr. Bailey: Is the hon. Gentleman trying to say that anyone who has been dispersed by the police in such circumstances will be able successfully to challenge the legislation on grounds of human rights?
      Mr. David Heath: The hon. Gentleman has not been listening. It is pathetic.
      Simon Hughes: It is frustrating that some hon. Members do not yet understand debate. The answer is that that is not what I said. If I had said it, the hon. Gentleman would have heard me say it. The answer is that the Joint Committee concluded that the proposal in the Bill could breach the law. Let us take the example of a person who has not committed an offence or done anything wrong and who refuses to comply when the police try to move him on. If that person were subsequently charged, convicted and sent to prison, he could succeed with a case against the Government.
      I hope that the hon. Gentleman is proud of the finding that the Government are in breach of the human rights convention, as he will support the proposal in the Lobby. However, I should prefer him not to be proud of it. He should understand that civil liberties are precious, as are the liberties of the individual. We should not give power to the authorities unless those powers are clearly justified.
      My final point has to do with clause 29(6), which deals with young people under 16. It states:
      "If, between the hours of 9pm and 6am, a constable in uniform finds a person in any public place … who he has reasonable grounds for believing—

      (a) is under the age of 16, and

      (b) is not under the effective control of a parent or a responsible person aged 18 or over,

      he may remove the person to the person's place of residence unless he has reasonable grounds for believing that the person would, if removed to that place, be likely to suffer significant harm."
      That is a separate provision. It allows the police to take young people aged under 16 at any time after 9 o'clock at night and before 6 o'clock in the morning away from where they are. I understand the motivation for the proposal, but it is not a necessary or proportionate power, as the evidence given to the Human Rights Joint Committee shows. Young people under 16 are no more likely to be badly behaved than older people. In fact, most young people are well behaved. Many people over 16 behave much worse.
      The Government, rightly, have made a big deal about the rights of children, and we are under pressure to sign up to the UN convention on the rights of the child. The
      938
      Government announced yesterday that the Minister for Children will also have responsibility for young people. We must take care that we do not tar young people with the brush of calling them troublemakers.
      Antisocial behaviour is a serious problem in all constituencies, and the pressure to deal with it is great. However, the responses to it can be either proper or improper. The responses in clause 29 are improper.
      Shona McIsaac: I am pleased to be able to take part in the debate. Like the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), I believe that this is one of the most important sections of the Bill, so I am astonished that the Liberal Democrats want to delete all the provisions that give the police powers to deal with persistent and significant antisocial behaviour in our communities.
      We know that antisocial behaviour is a problem the length and breadth of the country. Every day hon. Members receive complaints from their constituents about such behaviour perpetrated by gangs—except in Ludlow. The Liberal Democrat spokesman in the Standing Committee, the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green), told us that there was no antisocial behaviour in Ludlow, so perhaps we should not be astonished that the Liberal Democrats want to delete clause 29. Their spokesperson told us that antisocial behaviour did not exist. Liberal Democrat councillors throughout the land who are calling for increased powers to deal with antisocial behaviour and the dispersal of groups should pay attention to those remarks. Many Liberal Democrat councils back the Government's measures on the issue.
      Mrs. Brooke: Is the hon. Lady confident that all the existing powers to deal with antisocial behaviour are being used in her area?
      Shona McIsaac: No, antisocial behaviour in my area is not being tackled as well as I should like; it is a persistent problem, which is why we need additional legislation to support the existing provisions. The Bill should not be considered in isolation because its powers will interlink with others; they will weave together different aspects so as to tackle that most serious of problems in our communities.
      Jonathan Shaw: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in every year, under every Government, there is a crime Bill because that issue exercises our constituents? Sometimes, Governments get the measures right; sometimes, they get them wrong and some of the powers that we had hoped would work do not work in practice. However, the clause includes some practical provisions, which are certainly welcomed by the Police Federation; they will be used in moderation, in extreme cases where people want an end to horrendous and persistent yobbish behaviour.
      Shona McIsaac: My hon. Friend makes some pertinent points. He is right to draw our attention to the comments of the Police Federation. I notice that the Liberal Democrats conveniently glossed over those comments. In its response, the federation stated:
      "The power to be able to disperse unruly gangs is seen by the Police Federation to be particularly helpful for situations where a Section 5 Public Order offence is inappropriate, but where loutish,

      939
      intimidating behaviour needs to be tackled and youngsters moved on. The provision of a power to deal with such situations, in a simple manner, would not only have a positive effect in practical policing terms but also assist communities that suffer from such problems."
      Perhaps the Liberal Democrats should pay attention to that submission.
      Jeremy Corbyn: Obviously, from time to time, every Member has problems of antisocial behaviour among groups in their constituency. However, constituents also come to us because they feel that they have been wrongly treated by the police and wrongly tarred with that brush. Is not it of legitimate concern that the powers given to the police under the clause would require no serious proof of evidence, but would allow the police unfettered control over people?
      Shona McIsaac: The Bill will not give the police unfettered control. My hon. Friend is basically saying that we should do nothing about antisocial behaviour.
      Jeremy Corbyn: No, I am not.
      Shona McIsaac: That is how my hon. Friend's comments will come across to our constituents. They will think that he does not want to tackle the issue. His use of the phrase "from time to time" said it all. Antisocial behaviour does not happen from time to time; it is persistent and significant, as is stated in the Bill.
      4.45 pm
      It is important to be able to give people the powers to take action against such groups, which can hold whole communities to ransom and terrorise everyone, from the young to the elderly. They cause problems across the board. I have found from discussing the issue with my constituents that some of the people who are most concerned about what they call gangs are young people themselves. They are often the victims of antisocial behaviour by gangs of youths gathering outside schools and attacking each other. Young people are often the ones being bullied, harassed and intimidated. In paying attention to young people, we must acknowledge that they are too often the victims of antisocial behaviour. Antisocial behaviour should not be seen as an issue of the young versus the old, as the Liberal Democrats try to portray it.
      Like all hon. Members, I support youth projects—the Splash projects and so on—that try to find meaningful activities for young people. Those projects will continue, but they do not tackle all the problems. They certainly do not tackle problems that occur at 11.30, 12.30, 1.30 or 2.30 in the morning. No one will take young people along to a football match at 2.30 in the morning, when they are jumping on car roofs, making a racket and perhaps throwing bricks into people's gardens.
      We must have powers to deal with those situations when they occur, and the powers in part 4 are proportionate because of the inbuilt safeguards. The police will not be allowed to do whatever they like. The problem must be persistent, significant and occur in a
      940
      designated area. That will provide safeguards. If used, the powers will reassure our communities that action is being taken to deal with an increasing and significant problem.
      The Liberal Democrats have completely missed the point today. I do not know what world they live in, but most of us live in the real world. I hope that we will resist the Liberal Democrats' foolish amendments, which would delete any extra power that the police could have to deal with the significant problem of antisocial behaviour in our communities.
      Mr. Paice: I almost hesitate to intervene in the somewhat heated exchanges that have started to develop. I confess to the House that, when the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) said he would be brief, I suspected that we were doomed, and my self-prophecy proved right. The hon. Gentleman wanted to ensure that we reached the other two groups of amendments today and then took more than a third of the time allocated to make his opening speech.
      A large number of the amendments in this group are in my name and those of my hon. Friends. Although, as the hon. Gentleman said, one amendment has both our signatures, I hasten to assure him that that is pure coincidence because we are addressing the problem from completely opposite directions. We take the view—as we did in Committee—that it is not necessary to constrain the use of such powers in the way that the Bill proposes.
      I agree that a requirement for reasonableness in people's reactions is absent. If the hon. Gentleman has read the reports of the proceedings in Committee, he will know that I moved an amendment to that effect, so that the officer could assess whether he felt that people had reacted reasonably. The Government rejected that, and we shall seek to return to the issue when the Bill progresses to the other place.
      It is right that the police should have the powers to move people on and to disperse a group—not just young people under 16, as seemed to be the impression, but any group of people who are causing a nuisance. What I do not agree with the Government about is that it should be in a "relevant locality", with all the bureaucracy and paraphernalia that goes with designating that relevant locality. When there is clear evidence that a group of people are causing nuisance and annoyance and behaving antisocially in a particular location, the police should have the power, then and there, to do something about it. It is not necessary to go through all the bureaucracy of clause 30 to designate the area as a relevant locality.
      The majority of amendments that I tabled—I shall not detain the House by listing all of them—are designed to get rid of the concept of a relevant locality and simply to free up the police to use their discretion as they think fit if a problem arises in a particular area. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey referred to various youth projects, many of which are notable and have been developed through Government and voluntary initiatives for a long while, and I am sure that all Members support those in their constituencies. This is not, however, an either/or issue. My right hon.

      941
      Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) has spoken vividly in public about the excellence of these projects and the need for more of them, but whatever the project, pretending that they will somehow completely prevent any group of people gathering and causing a problem anywhere is wishful thinking in the extreme. We also need the powers to back up all the excellent work that provides activities for young people as well as others.
      We oppose totally the Liberals' attempt to remove this clause from the Bill. We do not pretend that it is perfect—we seek to amend it to give the police far more freedom and discretion. As I said, we believe that the Bill should include a test of reasonableness, which we tried to insert in Committee and which we shall seek to do again in the other place. Speaking for the Liberals in Committee, the hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) said:
      "We do not oppose the clause" [Official Report, Standing Committee G, 8 May 2003; c. 143.]
      We should not be a bit surprised that by now the Liberals have changed their mind and want to remove it.
      The issue of relevant locality and the need for police discretion goes beyond democracy and designating a particular locality as relevant. Our amendments seek to address the problems that will arise for areas that are not designated as relevant localities. We all know that the types of people who in many cases gather and cause nuisance and antisocial behaviour will know full well what the law is, where the relevant locality is and where it is not. The hon. Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor) is nodding in agreement, so I hope that she agrees with the logic of my argument, which is to remove the provision on relevant locality from the Bill. What concerns me is that if the police officers come along, after they have gone through the paraphernalia—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Stockton, South is now shaking her head; the Whips have got to her remarkably quickly. If the area has been designated through the bureaucracy of clause 30, and along comes a police officer who disperses a group of people, that group of people will immediately get wise to the fact that all they have to do is go down the road or across the street.
      The hon. Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw) shakes his head, but the fact is that a relevant locality could be anywhere. If he reads the report of the Committee's proceedings, he will discover that the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth) suggested that it could be just by a cash point. The concept of a relevant locality—whether it is a few square yards or a few square miles—is not defined in the Bill.
      I suggest that young people, or anyone who would be affected by the provision, might well know the area of the relevant locality and continue their behaviour outside it, which might be in a different part of the borough or down the street—we do not know. It would depend on the part of the locality in which they committed the offence in the first place. The whole measure will quickly fall into disrepute if they are able to evade it, which is why I maintain that we should remove all the paraphernalia and simply give the police the power and discretion to disperse groups, subject to a test of reasonableness. Indeed, the Local Government
      942
      Association's submission—I expect that all hon. Members have received it—said that the proposals might simply displace problems from one area to another, as I have said.
      Although the majority of our amendments seek to address that problem, I want to speak about one or two other issues. Amendment No. 76 stands alone and does not directly relate to any other amendments in the group. In Committee, I asked about police officers' ability to remove young people aged 16 to their place of residence unless such removal would be likely to cause harm. My worry, which is why I tabled the amendment, is that it is unclear from the Bill that if an officer took a young person back to their home, the officer would have complied with the removal. If, after reaching the home, the officer believed that the young person was at risk, perhaps because a parent or step-parent might exact retribution, I am not convinced that the Bill makes it clear that the officer could take him or her away again. The amendment would provide clarification that if an officer perceived that a young person might be at risk after removal to his or her place of residence, the obligation would be removed from the officer. The amendment is an attempt not to alter the Government's intention, but to provide clarification, because I am not sure that the Bill addresses the issue.
      I do not have specific concerns about the Government amendments in the group and we do not intend to oppose them. I think that they will extend slightly opportunities to use the powers and I shall be interested to hear how the Minister describes them. The provisions do not seem to be especially draconian.
      I return to the fundamental proposition behind the majority of our amendments: we support the principle that the police should be able to use dispersal orders, but we do not think that they should be so constrained that they cannot use them as and when problems arise. The hon. Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) told us what happens at 10.30 or 11.30 pm. If such problems arise, the police should be able to do something then and there, rather than having to decide whether they are in a relevant locality under clause 30 and saying, "Oh no, we're not. We can't do anything about it." The police might have to tell people affected that they could use dispersal powers only if the problems were occurring in the next street.
      The Government have produced pretty dramatic proposals—I accept the remonstrations of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey—but they are nevertheless necessary, as I am sure the Minister will say.
      However, the Government have also tried to hamper and constrain the proposals by creating the paraphernalia that surrounds the designation of relevant localities, and I fear that they will either fail to work or quickly fall into disrepute because people will find ways around them.
      Amendment No. 53 is not the lead amendment, so it has not been moved, but if no other amendment in the group is put to the vote, I shall move it formally. However, if the Liberal Democrats pursue their amendments to delete the relevant part of the Bill, not only can we not support them, but we will oppose them completely because their proposals go against what most of us find in our constituencies.
      5 pm
      The Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing, and Community Safety (Ms Hazel Blears): The clauses to which the amendments are tabled form an important, significant and central part of the powers available to police in such circumstances. I fundamentally disagree with the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) in his analysis of the powers. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac) said in her passionate contribution, it is vital to take the powers, the Bill and our strategy and policy on tackling antisocial behaviour as a complete set of integrated measures. To single out the powers of dispersal as a fundamental attack on civil liberties does the hon. Gentleman no credit. If he is seriously saying to his constituents that he does not think that the powers are needed or requested by the people in his community, then I am astonished. It is yet another example of the Liberal Democrats willing the ends but not being prepared to will the means, in this case to tackle antisocial behaviour and disorder in our communities.
      The hon. Gentleman knows well, as he demonstrated in his contribution, that this Government have embarked on a series of investments to ensure that young people are diverted from crime and disorder. We are engaging them in youth projects and ensuring that they have educational and leisure opportunities. The Government have spent millions of pounds setting up an infrastructure to ensure that young people in particular have access to some of the opportunities that others take for granted. The powers of dispersal are designed to deal with those circumstances in which the presence or behaviour of a hard core of individuals intimidates, alarms, distresses and harasses people in our communities.
      We recognise that as the powers are important and significant, it is right that they are constrained by a series of conditions before they become operable. Those conditions are set out in clause 29(1)(a) and (b). It states that an officer has to have
      "reasonable grounds for believing … that members of the public have been intimidated, harassed, alarmed or distressed as a result of the presence or behaviour"
      of people in the locality, and
      "that anti-social behaviour is a significant and persistent problem in the relevant locality."
      It is certainly not a case of the Government rushing to give powers without a framework or constraints. Significant hurdles have to be overcome before the powers are triggered and kick in, which is the right way to proceed.
      Jeremy Corbyn: I have two concerns about clause 29(1). The first is what legitimate proof of evidence is required on the persistent participation of the same people in an assembly at a particular point. The second is how a place is defined. Is it an immediate locality, a street, a neighbourhood or a whole town? That is unclear. Will the Minister explain?
      Ms Blears: My hon. Friend raises important points. The provision is for a senior officer to designate a locality, which is the right thing to do. That designation triggers the powers of the constable to make directions on dispersal.
      944
      That locality could be an area covering a basic command unit, a borough or a ward. It is right that that matter should be subject to discussion with local crime and disorder reduction partnerships and community safety partnerships, as that would enable us to engage with the local community to find out where there is a problem and where the powers need to kick in. My hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) will notice that Government amendments Nos. 38 and 39 provide for the constable to make a direction in relation to part of the locality. If there is a problem in a parade of shops, a playground or a smaller part of the designated locality, there will be flexibility for constables, senior officers and the local community to use the provision as part of an armoury of tools. Members need to understand that this is not a one-club approach—it is part of a range of tools available to local communities to combat antisocial behaviour.
      Simon Hughes rose—
      Ms Blears: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman but, as his contributions took up three quarters of an hour, I am loth to do so.
      Simon Hughes: If the locality proposal is such a good idea, why has the Government's only other proposal of a curfew in a specific locality not been used anywhere at all?
      Ms Blears: The aim of the Bill is to make sure that we have a straightforward way to tackle antisocial behaviour. The hon. Gentleman will know that, in relation to previous legislation, the local authority had to make an order, which had to be agreed between it and the police, then submitted to the Secretary of State for approval. That was a complex and bureaucratic way to proceed, but the Bill allows for a much simpler way to proceed, as the superintendent can designate the locality, then the constable can go in and exercise powers under the Bill. That is a much more appropriate way to proceed.
      Siobhain McDonagh: Is my hon. Friend aware that much of the Committee's time was spent looking at proposals that could easily be made effective? Taking on board the points made by Liberal Democrat Members, we were aware that there was a raft of legislation, but the problem was that powers under that legislation were either not being used or were not working. I am willing to do a poll in the constituency of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), and I am sure that the overwhelming majority of his constituents would support our suggestions.
      Ms Blears: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who played an extremely constructive and helpful role in Committee by seeking to make the Bill's provisions effective. She has made an important point, and it is one of the reasons for the introduction of a regime of fixed penalty notices. We want to make sure that sanctions can be implemented quickly, easily and without bureaucracy so that they have an immediate effect.

      945
      I find it quite strange to be in a position where, on the one hand, the Liberal Democrats are seeking to remove all the relevant provisions from the Bill, leaving us with no powers whatsoever to tackle the congregation of groups and, on the other, the Conservatives are seeking to remove all safeguards, constraints and hurdles that we have introduced to prevent an arbitrary exercise of powers. In those circumstances, we have adopted a third or middle way, which is the correct way to implement the Bill's powers.
      We need to get the balance right. The Bill deals with rights and responsibilities. It deals both with the rights of the community and the rights of individuals—that should always be uppermost in our mind. Up and down the country, communities are concerned about groups congregating and causing intimidation. I had an opportunity to read the debates in Committee, but I am afraid that I have not had the chance to visit Much Wenlock, where there is zero crime and disorder, although I hope to do so in future. However, I must tell the Liberal Democrat spokesman that his experience is very much a minority one. Thirty per cent. of respondents to the British crime survey said that groups congregating together, causing intimidation or distress, were either a big problem or a fairly big one in their communities. The Government are therefore seeking to address a significant issue.
      David Taylor: At the weekend, I went to a public meeting in Moira in north-west Leicestershire at which hundreds of people expressed serious concern about the activities of a group of adolescent youths who lived in the area. Yes, what my hon. Friend is promoting may be a useful add-on to existing powers, but the community there believe that it is the availability, visibility and sensitivity of local policing that might tackle and draw the teeth of some of the concerns that they expressed to me in a tense and heated meeting at the weekend.
      Ms Blears: Many of us in our capacity as constituency Members of Parliament have attended such meetings, where people are rightly angry and feel powerless to do anything about their circumstances. Many of the powers in the Bill are designed to enable those communities to reclaim their streets and their neighbourhoods for the decent people who live in them. The massive numbers of extra police that the Government have funded, together with the community support officers who are increasingly visible on our streets and the neighbourhood wardens funded by local authorities, are providing a greater degree of visible reassurance to the people whom I represent and to many communities throughout the country. I acknowledge that the situation is not resolved, but we are making significant progress.
      Matthew Green: I return to the core of clause 29. The Minister is right to speak of the hurdles that are in place when a senior officer designates an area—he must have reasonable grounds, and the antisocial behaviour must be significant and persistent. However, once the area has been designated for up to six months, and the constable
      946
      is dealing with it, the condition of significant and persistent antisocial behaviour no longer applies. The condition is only that two or more people are gathering and might alarm somebody. They may well not be the people who caused the original problem. Does not the Minister understand that? How does she seek to ensure that the police will not use the powers against people who were not the cause of the problem in the first place?
      Ms Blears: Clause 29(1) makes it clear that the officer must have reasonable grounds for believing both that there is intimidation and that antisocial behaviour is a significant and persistent problem. I advise the hon. Gentleman to read the words of the clause carefully. No doubt they will be tested at some point.
      The powers are aimed at specific spots. I want to deal with the point raised by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) about that. We have not sought a once-and-for-all power nationally. We recognise that problems spring up in certain localities. He referred to the constraints around them as paraphernalia. With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I believe that the constraints and hurdles are an important framework within which the powers operate, and they are sufficient to satisfy genuine concerns about civil liberties, balanced by the rights of communities.
      I shall address the points raised by the Joint Committee on Human Rights. That important Committee considered the matter carefully. We responded to the Committee's original concerns, it accepted many of our reassurances on various parts of the Bill, but as we have heard, it still has some concerns about the establishment of the power. We do not share the Committee's concern that it will be difficult to establish that the powers would be used only when there was a proportionate, pressing social need.
      When we think about pressing social need, we must put at the forefront of our mind communities that are currently prevented from using facilities in their area, such as the cash point or the shops. Young people may be prevented from using parks and leisure facilities because they are excluded from them by the attitude of the people who are causing mayhem and distress in their community. There is a series of safeguards, which I hope will reassure the Joint Committee. Authorisation must be given by a senior officer. The local authority must be consulted. The authorisation does not last for more than six months.
      When we come to make the code of practice under clause 33, it is important that it sets out the conditions in which the power can be operated. We should consider issues such as the grounds for authorisation having an objective basis. That is an important issue. I read the entire debate about reasonableness and when reasonableness applies to the considerations.
      5.15 pm
      Other important issues include seeing whether we can assess the sort of behaviour that the constable wants to prevent when he is making the direction; the degree of intimidation that might be appropriate for consideration; at what stage parents should be notified and brought into the process; and how to determine the geographical areas and locality involved—an issue raised by the hon. Member for South-East

      947
      Cambridgeshire. We want to clarify a range of issues in the code of practice, taking on board the important and serious matters raised by the Joint Committee. We feel that those provisos will certainly be sufficient to satisfy the human rights position. Human rights and responsibilities relate both to individuals and the communities that we are seeking to protect.
      Jonathan Shaw: In defining the locality, will not the police often say that crime is a responsibility not only for them, but for the entire community? In seeking to engage people in the process, does my hon. Friend agree that they are more likely to feel well disposed towards it and feel that it is worth while if they have some powers, and if they can see cause and effect in terms of discussion with the police and agree on a locality to deal with a persistent problem in their neighbourhoods?
      Ms Blears: My hon. Friend makes an important point, which relates to the desire to enable communities to reclaim their neighbourhoods. That is possible if they feel a sense of ownership and believe that people are taking notice of what they are doing. If they feel that they are making significant steps on the basis of real power to make a difference in their communities, they will be much more likely to participate in a community safety or crime and disorder reduction partnership and feel that their time is well invested and that what they are doing is worth while. If people do not see any action, they will feel that it is pointless for them to be involved, so such provisions can increase the community involvement that we want to secure.
      We do not want to burden the police with a huge set of bureaucratic requirements. That is why the powers are different from some of the other powers that have been introduced in the past. We want to make the arrangements as simple as we can. It is important that the police feel confident about exercising their powers. The code of practice will be key in that respect. We want to ensure that the constables or community support officers who are making the directions feel confident about their powers. That is why we tabled amendments about choosing a part of the locality; I think that such flexibility is extremely important. I feel that the powers are necessary and proportionate, and that they will have a significant impact.
      The hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire referred to removing a child from the area. The powers allow young people who are under 16 to be taken back to their homes. If the constable thinks that they will be at risk of significant harm, he can alert social services and engage the child protection machinery that is available. This is not a case of penalising young people and saying that they are the perpetrators. They can be just as much at risk as anybody else of crime and of being drawn into prostitution or other exploitation and becoming victims. It is therefore appropriate that constables should have a power to decide that, as a child is out late at night, they are not supervised and their parents are not acting responsibly, they will take them home.
      Constables have considerable experience of assessing significant harm. They are all engaged with the local child protection procedures, and I do not anticipate that they would have any difficulty in assessing whether a
      948
      child was likely to be at risk of significant harm. I therefore do not anticipate that any of the problems outlined by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire will arise. The powers to take children back to their homes are important in ensuring that we can protect children who may be out and about at 1, 2 or 3 o'clock in the morning, entirely inappropriately.
      Mr. Paice: The Minister is right in everything that she has said and I do not disagree with her comments, but she has not dealt with the point that I am trying to make in amendment No. 76. As the Bill is currently drafted, it states that a constable
      "may remove the person to the person's place of residence unless he has reasonable grounds for believing that the person would, if removed to that place, be likely to suffer significant harm."
      The point that I was trying to make is that, once the officer has taken the young person home, he will have carried out the removal, which will be in the past. The phrase "if removed to" is in the future tense. I want the Bill to be clear that, exactly as she says, when a constable sees the circumstances of the young person's home once he has taken them home and believes at that stage that they might suffer significant harm, he should be able to say to the young person "I have carried out the removal, but I am going to take you away again."
      It is not adequate simply to say, "Yes, I now think that he is going to suffer significant harm so I'll ring social services." That might be too late. I want the officer to have the discretion that he rightly says that he should have.
      Ms Blears: I can give the hon. Gentleman that reassurance. The provision is designed to indicate that if the child would be at risk of significant harm, it is inappropriate to return them to that place. The duty is on the constable to assess the situation. Having taken the child to remove him to the home, if he finds circumstances there that could result in them being at risk of significant harm, he is under a duty to take steps to ensure that that does not happen. Under the general child protection provisions, we would expect constables to alert the duty social worker and to get in touch with the local authority social services department. I can therefore give the hon. Gentleman the reassurance that he seeks that the child will not be at increased risk.
      The powers are necessary, proportionate and will provide another flexible tool in our armoury to tackle antisocial behaviour. They will be broadly welcomed by communities, although they are not supported by the Liberal Democrats. I ask the House to reject the wrecking amendments tabled by the Liberal Democrats and to reject the Conservative amendment, which takes the libertarian argument a little too far. There should be some constraints on these serious powers. The Government have got the balance about right in the interests of the communities that we represent.
      Mr. James Clappison: I agree with a great deal of what the Minister said. I would gently say to her, however, that the key element of the power is that it

      949
      should be used sufficiently in practice. The test will be of how much practical use it is, especially to communities that are besieged by antisocial behaviour.
      The provision will be warmly welcomed by my constituents. In recent months, I have attended several meetings in which constituents have complained about problems caused by groups of youths misbehaving. At one well-attended meeting, there were a number of Liberal Democrat councillors who were anxious that something should be done. If I had been minded to make a point about the locality in which the problem was occurring, I would have tried their patience, given their long-standing experience of problems in their neighbourhood.
      It is entirely legitimate for Liberal Democrat Members to question new legislation and new powers for the police and to judge whether they are compatible with civil liberties. It is sometimes unpopular to plead the civil liberties cause, but I recognise that it is necessary to do so. However, I have to say to the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) that on this occasion they have got it wrong. Their attitude towards the clause is misguided. It is proportionate, and it is not objectionable in principle to give the police this power. My worry is that it may not be used sufficiently in practice. I remind the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey that we are not talking about arrest, loss of civil liberties or the acquisition of a criminal record, but the power of police officers to disperse groups of people, subject to certain conditions. I wonder whether too many conditions have been hedged around the power: there is a formidable list to be gone through. If problems of the kind described in clause 29(3) are occurring—that is, if a police officer
      "has reasonable grounds for believing that the presence or behaviour of a group of two or more persons in any public place in the relevant locality has resulted, or is likely to result, in any members of the public being intimidated, harassed, alarmed or distressed"—
      it is not out of proportion to give the police the power to require that group to disperse.
      When the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey was asked earlier what he thought should be done about such people, he whispered under his breath, "Nick them." That is an entirely misguided approach to take. The activities described in subsection (3) would probably be an offence under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986, so the police would already be entitled to arrest somebody, bring charges against them and haul them up in court for such behaviour.
      Would it not be better from everyone's point of view to give the police the power to disperse the group first, to prevent any of those consequences from arising? Would it not be in the interests of the young people themselves to be dispersed rather than arrested and hauled before the courts, where they could get a criminal record? I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I think that he is utterly misguided.
      Simon Hughes: The comment that I made earlier was that if the people in question, young or old, were committing an offence, they could indeed be arrested.
      950
      Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, if the power contained in clause 31(2) were put into the legislation, someone who
      "knowingly contravenes a direction given to him under section 29(4) commits an offence",
      could be arrested and sent to prison for up to three months?
      Mr. Clappison: One would hope that they would obey the direction given to them by the police officer. That would certainly be better than the police officer arresting them there and then for an offence, and taking them to a police station for charges to be brought. It would be better for the person concerned, because they would not acquire a criminal record under public order legislation. The hon. Gentleman talks about circumstances in which an offence has been committed, but I strongly believe that this would be the same offence as exists at the moment under that legislation. This Bill gives the police an additional power to require people to be dispersed. I do not think that that is out of proportion. Indeed, I think that it will be a help, but I have to say to the Minister that I wonder whether there is an overload of conditions in the clause.
      The key is whether the provisions will be used in practice. Curfews have been mentioned. They, too, were put forward as an important part of the Government's armoury, but, as we know, they have not been much used. The Government have introduced other legislative measures that have been more successful. It is important to keep an eye on powers such as these, to design them so that they are easy to use and readily available to the police, and to ensure that they are actually used. That is what our constituents want. My constituents are crying out for action on law and order, particularly on antisocial behaviour. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey might have noble motives but, in this case, he is totally misguided. Removing the clause would send entirely the wrong signals in our attempts to tackle antisocial behaviour. He is wrong on this, and I hope that he will reconsider his position. If anything is out of proportion on this, it is the attitude of the Liberal Democrats to this fairly modest measure.
      Jeremy Corbyn: I will be brief, as I realise that we have only a couple of minutes left. I do not necessarily want to make myself unpopular with my own Front Bench, but I have serious concerns about the powers in this clause. That is not because I am in favour of antisocial behaviour—quite the opposite. My constituency, like many others, suffers from all kinds of totally unacceptable antisocial behaviour. Like many others, I have attended public meetings at which people make all kinds of allegations about groups of young people. Some are true and justified; some are untrue; and some are based on misconceptions or misperceptions.
      I have also spent some time talking to groups of young people who hang around the place in large numbers looking intimidating. They often tell me that they are broke and bored, and that the youth club has been closed. What are they supposed to do? Last weekend, I found a group of people hanging round a park. They could have been deemed to be antisocial. They told me that they were unemployed, broke and bored. They were not really presenting a threat to anyone. We need to keep a sense of proportion in these matters.

      951
      I would also suggest to the Minister that the power to designate an area is far too general and broad. One could imagine an over-zealous senior officer simply designating a whole borough as the "relevant locality". What, then, would happen whenever people assembled? What would the police actually do? Surely we should rely on intelligent co-operative policing.
      My final point is on the proposals for under-16s to be taken home after 9 o'clock at night. What is the reaction of the young people in the rest of the community going to be to a group of 1 5-year-olds who are out on a Friday evening being taken home by police officers? Can we not just think this through a bit more?
      5.30 pm
      Simon Hughes: My hon. Friends and Conservative Members tabled amendments in Committee. We wanted to amend the Bill, but we were unable to persuade the Government to do so. At that stage, we did not seek to delete the clause, but we tried to improve it. We failed to do that. We had an honest debate. The hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) made a reasonable point about what powers are needed. We have a different judgment, because we believe that plenty of powers are available. The Association of Chief Police Officers was clear that this clause may lead to
      "confrontation, disengagement and isolation of some elements of the communities we police."
      The Police Federation, although supportive in general, was against these powers being available to community support officers.
      If the Minister reads the Bill carefully, she will see that my hon. Friends were right. There has to be the precondition of persistent antisocial behaviour, but it allows the authorities to intervene on someone who has never been involved in that.
      We have an honest difference of view. We think that plenty of powers are available, that the clauses in part 4 are not necessary and will, on balance, be unhelpful. We want to deal with antisocial behaviour, but we strongly believe that this is a step too far. We hope that the House of Lords will substantially amend the Bill, but that, in the first place, hon. Members will join us in rejecting clause 29, thus signifying that part 4 is not the answer to the problems that many of us experience.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 48, Noes 415.

      Division No. 251]

      [5:31 pm

      AYES

      Allan, Richard

      Doughty, Sue

      Baker, Norman

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      Barrett, John

      George, Andrew (St. Ives)

      Breed, Colin

      Gidley, Sandra

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

      Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

      Burnett, John

      Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

      Burstow, Paul

      Cable, Dr. Vincent

      Harvey, Nick

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Heath, David

      Chidgey, David

      Holmes, Paul

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Keetch, Paul

      Cotter, Brian

      Kennedy, rh Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness)

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      952

      Kirkwood, Sir Archy

      Stunell, Andrew

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      McDonnell, John

      Thurso, John

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

      Tonge, Dr. Jenny

      Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

      Moore, Michael

      Webb, Steve (Northavon)

      Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

      Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

      Öpik,Lembit

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Willis, Phil

      Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Rendel, David

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Mr. Alan Reid and

      Sanders, Adrian

      Tom Brake

      NOES

      Ainger, Nick

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

      Alexander, Douglas

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Allen, Graham

      Cash, William

      Amess, David

      Caton, Martin

      Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

      Challen, Colin

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Chaytor, David

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Chope, Christopher

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Clapham, Michael

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Clappison, James

      Austin, John

      Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

      Bacon, Richard

      Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Bailey, Adrian

      Baird, Vera

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Baldry, Tony

      Clarke, rh Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

      Barker, Gregory

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

      Barnes, Harry

      Baron, John (Billericay)

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Battle, John

      Clelland, David

      Beard, Nigel

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Coaker, Vernon

      Bennett, Andrew

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Benton, Joe (Bootle)

      Cohen, Harry

      Bercow, John

      Coleman, Iain

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Collins, Tim

      Best, Harold

      Colman, Tony

      Betts, Clive

      Conway, Derek

      Blackman, Liz

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

      Blunkett, rh David

      Cooper, Yvette

      Blunt, Crispin

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Boateng, rh Paul

      Corston, Jean

      Borrow, David

      Cousins, Jim

      Boswell, Tim

      Cranston, Ross

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Cruddas, Jon

      Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

      Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Cummings, John

      Brady, Graham

      Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

      Brazier, Julian

      Brennan, Kevin

      Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

      Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Curry, rh David

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Dalyell, Tam

      Bryant, Chris

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Buck, Ms Karen

      David, Wayne

      Burgon, Colin

      Davidson, Ian

      Burnham, Andy

      Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

      Burns, Simon

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Burt, Alistair

      Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

      Butterfill, John

      Byers, rh Stephen

      Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

      Cairns, David

      Cameron, David

      Dawson, Hilton

      953

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

      Denham, rh John

      Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Horam, John (Orpington)

      Doran, Frank

      Howard, rh Michael

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

      Drew, David (Stroud)

      Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

      Howells, Dr. Kim

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Edwards, Huw

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Efford, Clive

      Hunter, Andrew

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

      Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Evans, Nigel

      Illsley, Eric

      Fabricant, Michael

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Fallon, Michael

      Jack, rh Michael

      Farrelly, Paul

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

      Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Fisher, Mark

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Jamieson, David

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Jenkins, Brian

      Flight, Howard

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

      Flint, Caroline

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Flook, Adrian

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Follett, Barbara

      Forth, rh Eric

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Foster, rh Derek

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Francis, Dr. Hywel

      Kaufman, rh Gerald

      Francois, Mark

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

      Kidney, David

      Gardiner, Barry

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Garnier, Edward

      King, Andy (Rugby)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Gilroy, Linda

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Godsiff, Roger

      Lammy, David

      Goggins, Paul

      Leslie, Christopher

      Goodman, Paul

      Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

      Grayling, Chris

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Green, Damian (Ashford)

      Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

      Greenway, John

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Grieve, Dominic

      Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Grogan, John

      Lidington, David

      Hague, rh William

      Lilley, rh Peter

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Loughton, Tim

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Love, Andrew

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

      Hanson, David

      Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

      McCabe, Stephen

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Hawkins, Nick

      MacDonald, Calum

      Hayes, John (S Holland)

      MacDougall, John

      Healey, John

      McFall, John

      Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      McIsaac, Shona

      Hendrick, Mark

      Mackay, rh Andrew

      Hendry, Charles

      McKechin, Ann

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Heppell, John

      Maclean, rh David

      Hermon, Lady

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Hesford, Stephen

      McNulty, Tony

      Heyes, David

      MacShane, Denis

      Hinchliffe, David

      McWalter, Tony

      954

      McWilliam, John

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Malins, Humfrey

      Ruane, Chris

      Mandelson, rh Peter

      Ruddock, Joan

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Ruffley, David

      Maples, John

      Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

      Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Salter, Martin

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Martlew, Eric

      Sawford, Phil

      Maude, rh Francis

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

      Sedgemore, Brian

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Selous, Andrew

      Merron, Gillian

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Michael, rh Alun

      Sheerman, Barry

      Milburn, rh Alan

      Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

      Miliband, David

      Sheridan, Jim

      Miller, Andrew

      Simmonds, Mark

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

      Moonie, Dr. Lewis

      Singh, Marsha

      Moran, Margaret

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Morgan, Julie

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Morley, Elliot

      Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Soames, Nicholas

      Mountford, Kali

      Soley, Clive

      Mudie, George

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Mullin, Chris

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Spring, Richard

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Stanley, rh Sir John

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      Murrison, Dr. Andrew

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

      Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Stoate, Dr. Howard

      Olner, Bill

      Streeter, Gary

      Organ, Diana

      Stringer, Graham

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

      Ottaway, Richard

      Syms, Robert

      Owen, Albert

      Tami, Mark (Alyn)

      Page, Richard

      Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

      Paice, James

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Picking, Anne

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Pickles, Eric

      Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Pike, Peter (Burnley)

      Timms, Stephen

      Plaskitt, James

      Tipping, Paddy

      Pollard, Kerry

      Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

      Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

      Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

      Portillo, rh Michael

      Tredinnick, David

      Pound, Stephen

      Trickett, Jon

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Truswell, Paul

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Primarolo, rh Dawn

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Purchase, Ken

      Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Randall, John

      Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

      Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Redwood, rh John

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Waterson, Nigel

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

      Watkinson, Angela

      Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

      Robathan, Andrew

      White, Brian

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

      Wiggin, Bill

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Willetts, David

      Roe, Mrs Marion

      Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

      Rooney, Terry

      Williams, Betty (Conwy)

      955

      Wills, Michael

      Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

      Wilshire, David

      Winnick, David

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

      Young, rh Sir George

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Wood, Mike (Batley)

      Joan Ryan and

      Worthington, Tony

      Mr. Fraser Kemp

      Question accordingly negatived.
      It being three and a quarter hours after the commencement of proceedings on the programme motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to Order [this day.]

    Clause 29

      DISPERSAL OF GROUPS ETC.
      Amendments made: No. 38, in page 25, line 6, after second 'locality', insert
      'or any part of the relevant locality'.
      No. 39, in page 25, line 10, at end insert
      'or any part of the relevant locality'.—[Ms Blears.]

    Clause 34
      AUTHORISATIONS BY BRITISH TRANSPORT POLICE
      Amendment made: No. 40, in page 28, line 6, leave out '29(1)(a)' and insert '30(1)(a)'.—[Ms Blears.]
    Clause 36

      ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR ORDERS
      Amendment made: No. 31, in page 29, line 39, at end insert—
      '(8) An order under section 57 made in relation to subsection (5) above may make provision for that subsection to come into force—

      (a) for such period as is specified in the order;

      (b) on different days in respect of persons of different ages.

      (9) Subsection (8) does not affect section 58(2).
      (10) The making of an order as mentioned in subsection (8)(a) does not prevent the making of a further order under section 57—

      (a) whether for the same or a different purpose, or

      (b) in relation to the same area.'.—[Ms Blears.]

    Schedule 2

      CURFEW ORDERS AND SUPERVISION ORDERS
      Amendment made: No. 33, in page 54, line 10, at end insert—
      '(8A) If at any time while a supervision order imposing a foster parent residence requirement is in force, the supervisor notifies tlu offender—

      (a) that no suitable local authority foster parent available, and

      (b) that the supervisor has applied or proposes to apply under paragraph 5 of Schedule 7 for the variation a revocation of the order,

      956
      the foster parent residence requirement shall, until the determination of the application, be taken to require the offender to live in local authority accommodation (as defined by section 163 of this Act).'.—[Ms Blears.]

    Clause 43

      AIR WEAPONS: AGE LIMITS
      Caroline Flint: I beg to move amendment No. 3, in page 34, line 30, at end insert
      ', and,
      (b) after subsection (2) insert—
      "(3) It is not an offence under section 22(4) of this Act for a person of or over the age of fourteen to have with him an air weapon or ammunition on private premises with the consent of the occupier.
      (4) But where a person has with him an air weapon on premises in circumstances where he would be prohibited from having it with him but for subsection (3), it is an offence for him to use it for firing any missile beyond those premises."'.
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment (a) to the proposed amendment, at end insert—
      '() where an offence is committed under subsection (4) the donor or lender of the weapon shall also be liable for the offence.'.
      Government amendments Nos. 4 to 7.
      Amendment No. 70, in page 35, line 7, clause 44, after 'which', insert '(i)'.
      Government amendment No. 8.
      Amendment No. 71, in page 35, line 9, at end insert
      'and

      (ii) either has a barrel less than 30 centimetres in length for is less than 60 centimetres in length overall and

      (iii) is readily convertible (as defined in section 1(6) of the Firearms Act 1982) to fire ammunition capable of discharging a missile by the force of gunpowder or other explosive material.'.

      Amendment No. 72, in page 35, line 25, after 'which', insert
      'has a barrel length less than of 30 centimetres in length or is less than 60 centimetres in length overall and'.
      Amendment No. 73, in page 35, line 27, after 'dangerous', insert
      'by virtue of the fact that it can be readily converted to be capable of discharging a missile by the force of gunpowder or other explosive material'.
      Amendment No. 74, in page 35, line 44, at end insert—
      '(4B) If it appears to the Secretary of State that the provisions of the principal Act relating to prohibited weapons or ammunition should no longer apply to any weapon or ammunition he may by Order remove such weapon or ammunition from those specified in section 5.'.
      New clause 6—Requirement of firearm certificate for air weapons—
      '(1) For rule 2 of the Firearms (Dangerous Air Weapons) Rules 1969 (as amended by the Firearms (Dangerous Air Weapons) (Amendment) Rules 1993 there shall be substituted the following—
      "2.—(1) Subject to paragraph (2) below, rule 3 of these Rules applies to an air weapon (that is to say, an air rifle, air gun or air pistol)—

      (a) which is capable of discharging a missile so that the missile has, on being discharged from the muzzle of the weapon, kinetic energy in excess of 5.42 joules (4ft/lb), or

      (b) which is disguised as another object.

      (2) Rule 3 of these Rules does not apply to a weapon which only falls within (1)(a) above and which is designed for use only when submerged in water.".'.
      New clause 13—Carrying of an unloaded airgun or air rifle—
      'At the end of section 23 of the Firearms Act 1968 insert—
      '(3) It is not an offence for a person who has attained the age of 14 but is under 17 to have an unloaded airgun or air rifle with him in a public place provided that:

      (a) The airgun or air rifle is so covered by a securely fastened gun cover so that it cannot be used,

      (b) The young person is travelling directly to or from a place at which he can lawfully use the airgun or where it has been kept on his behalf (whether for repair or otherwise).'.

      Government amendment No. 9.
      Caroline Flint: With the permission of the House, I should like to speak to Government amendments Nos. 3 to 9. I will then listen to the debate on the other amendments, which we will resist, and respond to the debate on them at the end.
      I pay tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw), for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor), for Jarrow (Mr. Hepburn), for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin) and the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross) for bringing the misuse of airguns to the attention of the House. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford has actively sought to raise the issue in his private Member's Bill. He knows that the Government are not unsympathetic to what he has tried to achieve, and we hope that our current proposals to raise to 17 the age at which a young person can own an air weapon and to strengthen controls on unsupervised use will go a long way to meeting his concerns.
      We were aware in Committee of the implications of clause 43 for young shooters in rural areas. It is common for them to use airguns unsupervised for shooting practice and pest control on farms. It is claimed that adult supervision is neither necessary nor practical in such circumstances. The Government have listened to those concerns and have tabled amendments that create an exception to the general requirement for supervision. The exception relates to young people aged 14 to 16 inclusive when they are on private premises, provided that they have the consent of the occupier. However, the use of airguns is not restricted to rural areas, and many of the complaints from hon. Members concern their use in built-up, residential areas in urban, semi-urban and semi-rural settings. The exception will, therefore, not apply exclusively to rural areas. To protect innocent people from the indiscriminate shooting of air guns, it will also apply in urban areas, but we have built in the extra safeguard of making it an offence punishable by a fine of up to £1,000 to fire a pellet beyond the premises—such as the back garden of a house. We have sought to achieve a balance by listening to all sides of the debate on this important issue.
      958
      Government amendment No. 8 will simplify the description of air weapons to be banned under clause 44. The ban relates to weapons that use a self-contained gas cartridge system. As drafted, the description is supplemented with the phrase
      "whether powered by air or carbon dioxide".
      In Committee, the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) questioned whether the supplementary phrase was necessary. He thought that it might be too restrictive and allow the ban to be circumvented if someone developed a weapon powered by another gas—for example, nitrogen. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. I agree with him and the amendment will delete the phrase.
      Mr. Paice: I welcome the Minister to this part of the debate. As she said, this is an important issue that rouses tremendous emotions. I speak not only on behalf of the Opposition but on behalf of tens of thousands—if not hundreds of thousands—of people who shoot as a leisure pursuit. I wholly condemn the misuse of air weapons and I want that to be clear and on the record. Every self-respecting member of the shooting fraternity wholly condemns that misuse, whether it be shooting at people, pets or buildings. It is wrong, and it should not happen.
      The issue is how such misuse is prevented. Now is not the time to reprise all the arguments that we heard in Committee and that have been made by the Firearms Consultative Council, the Select Committee and many other organisations. Suffice it to say that almost everything that people describe as misuse is already an offence. I understand the Government's desire to take further action to reflect public concern and to try to ensure that people do not misuse air weapons. In that respect, I understand and support the Government's motives. However, I am not convinced that the decision to increase the age limit from 14 to 17 is necessary, although I understand the Government's reasons for doing so.
      I welcome Government amendment No. 3, which recognises the force of argument in Committee and from outside organisations that there is a justification for young people between 14 and 17 using air weapons on private land, either for target practice or pest control. I welcome the amendment, which is almost word for word the one that I tabled in Committee. I would be happy to go even further, which is why I have tabled amendment (a). I note the Minister's comment that she intends to resist it, and I would be interested to hear her reasons.
      One of the themes of the Bill has been the belief in parental responsibility. Indeed, other parts of the Bill are directly aimed at that. Therefore, I would be happy for parents to be held responsible, and liable to be charged with an offence, if they provided a young person with an air weapon that was then used illegally. Amendment (a) would simply provide that if a weapon were used improperly—if a missile went beyond the boundary of the premises or were fired without the consent of the occupier—then the person who gave or lent the weapon to the young person who fired it should also be liable. I shall be interested to hear why the Government have decided not to accept the amendment. At this stage, I cannot say whether I shall accept their argument.

      959
      New clause 13 deals with young people carrying air weapons to the place where they will be used. Many organisations have raised this matter, both those directly involved in shooting and those of a more general sporting nature. Young people can use air weapons for pest control, as has been described, but also as a way to enter the sport of target shooting. Air pistols are used by entry-level participants in that sport, but.22 or full-bore rifles are used by more experienced shooters. Competitions are held at all levels, ranging from local events to the Olympics. They are very important for a significant number of people. I am concerned that the Bill will mean that, although it is legal for young people to use a weapon in competition, they will not be able to take a weapon to a competition.
      Existing legislation requires that an air weapon in a public place must be unloaded and securely fastened in a secure container. The new clause would allow a young person to carry an air weapon to a legitimate place of use—to private land, or a shooting range, for example, or to a repair shop—as long as it was unloaded and securely covered. Also, the young person would have to demonstrate that he was en route to a legitimate use of the weapon.
      The matter has caused widespread concern, and other hon. Members will want to contribute to the debate. When it was raised in Committee, the then Minister, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), said that he was not persuaded of the argument. I undertook to go away and ensure that those from outside organisations concerned about the matter took the opportunity to persuade the Government of the validity of the argument. I hope that they have been able to do so, even though the Minister's opening remarks about resisting every proposal that was not a Government amendment does not give me great comfort. However, I hope that she will understand that the matter is one of genuine concern for many people. I do not believe that the new clause would result in the misuse that I presume is at the root of her opposition to it.
      I turn now to the separate issue of guns that use the gas cartridge system, and the powers that the Government propose to enable the Secretary of State to ban such weapons. Clearly, a serious problem exists. It is commonly called the Brocock issue, after the brand name of the most widely used gas cartridge air pistol. We know from the police that such weapons are regularly found to have been converted to fire proper gunpowder-propelled projectiles. Amendments Nos. 70 and 72 would constrain the Government's powers. They would not prevent the Government from taking those powers, as I recognise that there is no alternative, even though my basic approach to life is a desire not to ban anything. I have looked at many options, and believe that the only avenue open to the Government was to ban such weapons. However, I am not content that the Bill could allow the Government to ban almost anything that they chose. That would be taking things too far.
      6 pm
      We have frequently debated Henry VIII-type and order-making powers and, almost every Member has spoken for or against them. Where there is a case for them, they should be limited. Taken together, my cluster
      960
      of amendments would constrain such powers. Obviously, I welcome the Minister's comments about my proposals to remove definitions of the type of gas; it seems sensible that the provisions should apply to any gas, and I am grateful to her for accepting that point.
      We want to limit the powers in three aspects. First, the provisions would apply only to gas cartridge systems. Secondly, such systems have to be especially dangerous, defined as
      "those guns that can be converted to discharging a missile using gun powder or other explosive material".
      Thirdly, the provision should be limited to weapons that are small, in both barrel and overall length.
      Some of our amendments were drafted by the British Shooting Sports Council, which is aware of the need to do something about the problem. However, I hope to persuade the Government that, while doing so, we should not penalise the vast majority of people who use air weapons for safe and responsible purposes. Government amendment No. 3 recognises that desire and I hope that, on reflection, they will realise that the powers that they are taking in clause 44 go beyond what is necessary to address what I readily accept is a current problem relating to some self-contained gas cartridge system weapons. The purpose of my amendments is to address that problem.
      When the Minister moved amendment No. 3, she noted that many hon. Members would want to speak. I do not want to take too much of the time that we have been allocated for this element of our proceedings, so I shall draw my remarks to a conclusion.
      People concerned about the misuse of weapons and those who have suggested amendments that would be even more restrictive than the Government's proposals should understand that those of us who do not want to go down that road certainly do not condone the misuse of air weapons. We want it to be stopped.
      The debate is about how, rather than whether, that misuse should be stopped. Wholesale registration would not work. The bureaucratic system would be immense, bearing in mind the estimate that about 4 million air weapons are in circulation. The Government's general approach is in the right direction, with some exceptions. However, our amendments would slightly redress the balance.
      Our amendments would not create a free-for-all for the users of air pistols and air rifles; they would simply ensure that we maintain balance between the small minority of people who misuse such weapons and the vast majority who use them responsibly, properly and safely. I respect the concerns of people who feel that no guns should be allowed or that no private gun use is safe. I do not agree with their arguments but I accept that they are sincerely held. I hope that those who make such arguments will also accept the sincerely held views of those who have used such weapons for much of our lives, and do so responsibly and safely. We believe that there is a place for air weapons and other weapons in our community and that they can be part and parcel of our leisure pursuits without causing damage or risk to the vast majority of people. Such people should not be

      961
      confused with the tiny minority who use weapons maliciously to commit crime or intentionally to cause harm to people, property, birds or animals.
      There is a place for air weapons in our society. We have to find the right balance and, with amendment No. 3, the Government have moved a little way in finding that balance. I hope that the Minister will understand in addressing my amendments that I am simply trying to take that balance a little further, but not excessively so. I look forward to listening to her comments, but I repeat my opening remarks that no one whom I know, nor any reputable shooting organisation, does anything but totally condemn the misuse of air weapons, causing damage or risk to anyone or anything.
      Mr. David Clelland: It may be that some people will be deprived of their pleasure as a result of the Bill, but, too often, the victims of the misuse of such weapons are deprived of their lives or livelihoods.
      I wish to address my remarks to new clause 6, which appears on the amendment paper in the names of my right hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East and Washington, West (Joyce Quin), my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Hepburn) and myself. My right hon. Friend, who has long campaigned on the issue, has asked me to express to the House her bitter disappointment that she cannot take part in the debate for unavoidable reasons.
      The purpose of new clause 6 is to extend the need to hold a firearms certificate for the possession, purchase or acquisition of weapons with the capacity to inflict fatal injuries. That would ensure that the applicant is a suitable person to be entrusted with a firearm and that suppliers of dangerous air weapons are registered. In so far as it goes, we welcome part 6, especially clause 42, which deals with carrying firearms in a public place. We welcome the fact that it will be an offence to carry an air weapon or an imitation firearm in a public place without lawful authority or reasonable excuse. We welcome the fact that that will be an arrestable offence, subject to a maximum penalty of six months' imprisonment. That demonstrates that the Government take the issue seriously.
      We welcome the age increase from 14 to 17—it will be offence for anyone to give an air weapon to a person under 17, and those under 17 will not be able to own an air weapon—and tightening up when such weapons may be used unsupervised. We also welcome the fact that, under clause 44, the Secretary of State will be able to prohibit or introduce other controls in respect of any air weapon that appears to him to be especially dangerous. Of course, that will apply to those air weapons that may be converted to use conventional ammunition. In welcoming those measures, I also have to point out that we do not feel that they do not go far enough.
      The Minister will be aware that 75 local authorities and six police authorities in England and Wales have signed up to a campaign, led by Gateshead metropolitan borough council, to bring those possibly lethal weapons under the same control as other firearms. There has been an increasing number of incidents in which serious injuries and even deaths have been caused by the irresponsible use of air weapons.
      962
      In 2001, Matthew Sheffield, who was 13-years-old, was killed by the irresponsible use of an air weapon. That is just one example, and I shall quote his parents' comments:
      "We find it incomprehensible that the use of a fishing rod, the purchase of a new TV and obtaining a driving licence are subject to greater regulation than the purchase and use of a firearm capable of causing death."
      That comment goes to the nub of new clause 6.
      In 2000, the Select Committee on Home Affairs found that the power of an air weapon capable of inflicting fatal injuries was a third of that at which the weapon would fall into the firearms category under the Firearms (Dangerous Air Weapons) Rules 1969. The Select Committee recommended that firearms should be licensed according to their lethality, rather than their mechanism. It found that there was no reason to license weapons with insufficient power to inflict fatal injuries and that the muzzle energy below which a licence should not be required was 4 foot-pounds. That is why we recommend that weapons with a muzzle energy of more than 4 foot-pounds—5.42 J—should fall within the regulations.
      We would also argue that a fee is paid to the police force for the certificate, so that no new burden would be placed on the police, should the Minister put up that argument. Furthermore, we would argue that there would be potential savings to the police force in terms of armed response deployments, as a significant number of such incidents involve air weapons. In Northumbria, for instance, around 50 per cent. of such incidents fall into that category.
      We believe that the amendment is modest and sensible, and it would certainly be widely welcomed by those who have suffered because of the reckless and irresponsible use of air weapons, which the current law fails to tackle correctly. I am sorry that the Minister has indicated that she will resist the amendment, and I hope that she will explain why that is the case. If there are technical reasons for resisting it, I hope that she will assure the House that the Government recognise the validity of the amendment and that they will review firearms legislation to introduce new restrictions before more avoidable accidents and fatalities take place.
      Matthew Green: I add Liberal Democrat support to the amendments that the Government have tabled after discussion in Committee. That discussion was prompted rightly by the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), which we supported. We showed that the large-scale use of air weapons in rural areas does not pose a significant problem. The measure would have prohibited the use of such weapons by people aged between 14 and 17, creating an offence when there is not a problem. For those who were not members of the Committee, my constituency is the size of Greater London, and I estimate that there are probably between 5,000 and 10,000 air weapons in my constituency and 63 police officers, only about a quarter of whom are on duty at any one time. It would be completely outside the realm of the police in my area to attempt to control use of such weapons by people aged between 14 and 17, and it would not be a task that they would want.
      Mr. Roger Williams: My constituents will also be grateful for the Government

      963
      amendment, especially Sennybridge pony club, which trains young people in the sensible use of weapons, particularly for triathlon events involving riding, running and target practice. That will be able to continue.
      Matthew Green: I thank my hon. Friend for that point.
      This group also includes several other amendments, some of which we can support in principle, although I am not certain about the detail as I am not an expert in that regard. Broadly, those are Conservative amendments. We cannot support new clause 6, because of the large numbers of weapons, estimated to be in the millions, that exist in the country. Trying to bring those under licensing would be a vast exercise. It would criminalise many people who did riot license them, and an extremely long period of grace would be required. I understand people's concern that the misuse of air weapons—which is an already an offence—can in extreme circumstances cause injury and fatalities. We all have great sympathy in that regard, but such misuse is relatively small-scale given that these weapons are very widespread. New clause 6, in seeking to bring air weapons into the licensing system, attempts a Herculean task, which may prove counter-productive in the long run.
      Mr. Clelland: The hon. Gentleman is not picking up what I said correctly. It is not a question of bringing all air weapons into the regulations—only those weapons that are powerful enough to be capable of causing death. That was not only my view and that of my right hon. and hon. Friends but the view of the Select Committee.
      Matthew Green: I fully sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's comments. As I understand it, however, a lot of weapons would be brought in under the 4 foot-pounds provision, including virtually every make of air rifle—which are used extensively in rural areas. Air pistols are not used extensively in areas such as my constituency.
      6.15 pm
      The Conservatives are right to raise these issues, especially in relation to clarifying which gas-propelled air weapons, which can be converted, are to be brought under the new prohibition, and making sure that that is limited to the weapons that are causing the problem. Problems in relation to the misuse of firearms and particular brands of air weapon and their conversion need to be tackled. We all agree on that. What we must make sure of, however, is that the law deals with the problem and does not stretch beyond it. I do not know whether the amendments are drafted correctly, but I hope that the Government will at least respond sympathetically. The amendments may not be the perfect way of dealing with the problem, but the Conservatives were right to table them, and they carry our broad support.
      We have a fair degree of sympathy with new clause 13. In relation to the carriage to a gun club of an air weapon that is securely wrapped in a box or case that prevents
      964
      access to the trigger mechanism, it seems inappropriate for the Government to ask 16-year-olds to make sure that their parents take them to the gun club, which may be only half a mile down the road, either by walking with them or carrying the weapon in the boot of the car. Safeguards should be provided, however, to ensure that the gun is not carried openly in the streets—that it is covered and protected—as the open carriage of gun would invite danger, perhaps more on the young person than on anyone else, as it might add to the attraction for someone to have a go at them.
      We welcome the fact that the Government listened, and I am glad that the amendments have been tabled. They meet a number of the concerns that have been raised, and I hope that a sympathetic attitude will be shown to some of the other concerns that are being expressed and that perhaps they will be given further consideration. What the Government are setting out to do, which we all support, should tackle the problem itself and not go beyond tackling the problem, which would clearly be unnecessary legislation.
      Ms Dari Taylor: I have supported 98 per cent. of this Bill, and I have been very pleased to be involved in it in Committee and on Report. But I have one serious disappointment that I want to share with the Minister. I hope that she will understand my disappointment and that she will make a commitment to review the issue over time. That disappointment is in relation to air weapons and firearms. Most particularly, I am disappointed that air weapons, which are defined as fairly innocuous and not potentially dangerous despite being potentially lethal weapons, are not to be registered and licensed.
      I am pleased with much that is said in the Bill about the way that air weapons must be handled in a public place, and that only those over 17 years of age will be able to purchase them—all of that is valuable—but the main issue for all of us is the potential of these weapons, misuse of which has caused a death in my constituency. My hon. Friend the Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) mentioned Matthew Sheffield, who lived in Eaglescliffe in my constituency. He was a young 14-year-old boy who was playing on a pleasant Sunday afternoon with an air rifle. He died because that air rifle was misused. That lethal potential must be acknowledged.
      The second feature of my reservation and concern is that clause 43 will amend section 22 of the Firearms Act 1968 so that it will not be an offence for a person aged over 14 to have an air weapon or ammunition on private premises with the consent of the occupier. The clear fact is that Matthew Sheffield's friends had the consent of the occupier. They were on private premises and the air rifle was used inappropriately.
      Mr. Paice: I entirely respect the hon. Lady's views, which she expressed in Committee. Does she accept that Government amendment No. 3, which is similar to an amendment that I tabled in Committee, would make it illegal for a projectile from an air weapon to go beyond the boundary of private premises? Although she is right to describe the tragedy in her constituency by saying that the weapon was fired from a private property, an

      965
      offence would have been committed under the new proposals because the missile went beyond the private property to cause the fatality.
      Ms Taylor: Unfortunately, the hon. Gentleman is inaccurate. The missile was fired on private property and the child died. The children were in a garden—his garden. The missile did no go over a hedge or outside the private property. The sheer enormity of the distress is shown by the fact that the incident happened on a Sunday afternoon while the children were playing a game that went wrong. The point is not only that a 14-year-old boy has died and a family has been traumatised, but that the boy's four friends find it difficult to come to terms with the fact that they were playing a game when an accident meant that a child died.
      I would never say that everyone misuses firearms or air rifles. I am simply saying that the issue with which we must all cope is that such weapons have a lethal potential. I believe that if an adult had named responsibility for an air weapon and gave it to a person aged between 14 and 17 with strict instructions on its use, it would have a controlling effect by ensuring that the young person knew the rifle's limitations and potential.
      Mr. Robert Marshall-Andrews: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is undoubtedly a true statistic that the vast majority of serious injuries and deaths caused by juveniles using air rifles happen on private property without the missile going outside private property? Does she agree that the Government's position is completely illogical?
      Ms Taylor: I do not accept that the Government's position is completely illogical. We are all trying to handle the issue carefully. The problem is that air weapons have a lethal potential. It is not illogical to try to handle the problem so that people who use air rifles to cope with rats or other vermin on private property may do so. I do not accept my hon. and learned Friend's proposition, although I know that it is a fact that most accidents and deaths occur on private property.
      I do not want to labour my point further, but I am sure that the Minister will acknowledge that potentially lethal weapons cause a problem. It is true that accidents occur on private property, and it is appropriate to maintain a focus on reviewing the problem so that if it is considered appropriate—as I believe that it is—further legislation may be introduced to provide that air weapons should be bought under licence. Such legislation should provide for a named responsibility. That is an appropriate stance and I ask the Minister to be mindful of my request.
      Mr. Peter Atkinson: It would be correct to mention my entry in the Register of Members' Interests because it might be relevant to the debate.
      I tell the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Ms Taylor) that I appreciate the tragedy in her constituency. I am also aware of other accidents, such as when a young girl was blinded in Gateshead owing to
      966
      the misuse of an air weapon. However, the only way in which we could provide that an air rifle or any firearm never caused an accident would be by banning them all. That would be similar to saying, "If you don't want people to be killed by cars, ban all cars"—the point becomes rather ridiculous. In this case, hard cases would make bad laws.
      Mr. Clelland: It is a question not of banning anything but of control. We are saying that if something looks like a gun, shoots like a gun and kills like a gun, it should be licensed like a gun.
      Mr. Atkinson: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says and I am coming to that point. The hon. Member for Stockton, South was highlighting the fact that a gun was misused in an incident in her constituency, that it could have been licensed and that a young man died as a consequence. It is almost impossible to legislate to prevent such incidents. They are tragic, but tragedies do happen.
      The hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) mentioned licensing. His proposal in new clause 6 would apply to air rifles producing 4 foot-pounds or more of energy, meaning that it would cover virtually every air rifle that exists. We do not know how many air rifles exist in this country; my estimate is 3 million and we have heard another estimate of 4 million. Registration of those weapons would place a huge and costly burden on the police. The cost would obviously be passed on to those who wish to use air weapons. Our experience of firearms and shotgun certificates shows that such additional cost places a real burden on low-income families. I think that my hon. Friends would agree that many people from low-income households who used to enjoy shooting have been forced to give it up because of the cost of registration.
      Mr. Clelland: I mentioned cost in my remarks. A price would have to be paid for a licence but there would not be an extra burden of cost on the police. The hon. Gentleman says that the number of air rifles with the lethality that we have described is unknown and that is the whole point. We should know how many such lethal weapons are out there, which licensing would achieve.
      Mr. Atkinson: Licensing involves a complicated and bureaucratic system. If an individual were to be licensed to possess any air weapon, checks would have to be made on the individual and the circumstances in which the weapon would be used, where it would be kept and whether it would be secure would all need to be determined. The same rules and regulations as apply to shotguns and rifles would apply to air weapons. That would represent a huge burden that would have to be paid for—presumably by those who want to use the weapons.
      Ms Dari Taylor: The hon. Gentleman is right that the provision would create a burden, but we have spoken to police authorities. Cleveland police authority is more than keen to be involved in a licensing scheme. We should consider neither burden nor cost, but whether we can increase control and prevent accidents. None of us would claim that we can eliminate accidents completely,

      967
      but after one has met a family and experienced such an incident at close hand, one realises that it behoves us to find a solution to the problem.
      Mr. Atkinson: I know exactly how the hon. Lady must have felt when she talked to the family and we all have great sympathy for them. However, I do not think that her proposal would solve the problem. The hon. Member for Tyne Bridge said that Northumbria police are called to many incidents caused by the improper use of air weapons, but the way in which many are used is illegal now. The vast majority of wounding incidents caused by air weapons are due to people breaking the existing law. Simply passing legislation to provide that everything must be registered would not mean that illegal air weapons—as they would become—would disappear from circulation.
      Those of us who have had the same argument about handguns and shotguns time and again have said that registration may be introduced and controls may be made tougher, but it will not reduce the number of illegally used and held weapons. History proves that to be correct.
      6.30 pm
      The Government are right to resist new clause 6, but I urge them to consider new clause 13. I was pleased that the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), who was not persuaded in Committee, has now been persuaded to change his mind. I am sorry that he is not in the Chamber. He has been promoted to the ranks of the silent ones and is no longer a Minister. No doubt he will be a valuable heavyweight asset in the Government's Whips Office. After last night, they need him. I am sure he will do a first-class job.
      I am also glad that the current Minister is persuaded. Young people of 14 are much more amenable to training in the responsible use of weapons. It is important that they learn how to use weapons safely. Such lessons stay with them for the rest of their lives. Those of us who shoot regularly know that those people who were taught when they were young are much safer than many people who shoot at a later stage of their lives. The fact that young people can now use those weapons under restriction and supervision is a great step forward.
      New clause 13 would be one further step forward for the Minister. Having allowed younger people to use weapons under supervision, there will be an awful logistical problem of getting them from A to B. If someone lives in a village and has permission to shoot on land outside it, he will have to be escorted there by an adult who will have to wait for him to return. That could be early in the morning or late at night when it would not be an attractive proposition. That will cause young people serious problems and put off many who would otherwise want to learn how to use such weapons at an early age.
      The new clause is not a huge step forward and I hope that the Minister will think about it. Even if she says no tonight, perhaps the subject can be dealt with in another place.
      Kate Hoey: I welcome the Government's change of mind since Second Reading and thank the
      968
      previous Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), for his willingness to listen to the shooting organisations. The Government have taken a sensible step and one that is necessary if we are to ensure that we continue our success in shooting sports at the Olympic games.
      The International Olympic Committee is supportive of shooting. When we bid for the games in London, the IOC may well consider how we intend to ensure that people get the opportunity to shoot, because many people who compete in the pentathlon, the triathlon and other sports started by using air weapons. There is a similar problem with the pistol ban, and our pistol shooters have to go abroad to train. There is a concern that if we do not do something about that and take a more flexible attitude, it could affect our bid for the games in London in 2012.
      I welcome Government amendment No. 3 and urge them to consider new clause 13, which I fully support. If there is no vote on the Opposition new clause, I hope that the Minister and Home Office officials will think about it. They must know that rejecting it is not reasonable. I also hope that the Lords will accept a similar amendment so that we have another chance to consider it. If we are acknowledging that it is reasonable to allow young people of 14, 15 and 16 to use airguns on private premises, it is nonsensical not to accept new clause 13.
      Airguns are not only used in rural areas. It is important that young people who are training for various sporting events can travel to clubs. Surely if we apply a commonsense approach to the problem we can find a way to allow an unaccompanied young person to carry an airgun in a public place while he or she goes to and from the premises where he or she may legitimately use it. New clause 13 overcomes that difficulty. It allows that to happen on the strict condition that the airgun is in a securely fastened gun cover and that the young person travels directly to the club from his or her home. The new clause seems sensible and I shall be most interested to hear the Minister explain why it is not.
      I do not support new clause 6, which calls for the licensing of weapons. The licensing system for other weapons hits the law-abiding decent shooter. The non-law-abiding nasty people in my constituency who go around murdering people would not dream of licensing their weapons. If we are honest, it is nonsense to think that we could possibly stop some of the illegitimate and terrible things that are caused by a small number of people who use weapons in an antisocial way. We cannot stop them by imposing another big bureaucracy that would cost a fortune, when the police cannot enforce the existing law.
      I sometimes wish that Members who have a knee-jerk response to air weapons and issues related to guns would spend time in a shooting club with people who shoot and who have shot all their lives. They would see young people showing the greatest discipline when they shoot. I do not want to go over the Second Reading debate again, but if they saw young people in a disciplined situation they would realise that the best way to prevent antisocial behaviour is through education. That is exactly what the Home Office said a few years ago. Unfortunately, it seems to have changed its mind.

      969
      I thank the current Minister and the previous Minister for agreeing to the change and for tabling Government amendment No. 3. I hope that the Government will give serious consideration to new clause 13, because their amendment does not make sense without it.
      Mr. Mark Francois: The hon. Lady has a particular perspective on such matters both as a former Minister for Sport and as someone who has a considerable amount of gun crime in her constituency. She is able to see both sides of the argument. With that experience, does she agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) that in this instance hard cases could make bad law?
      Kate Hoey: There is concern about some horrible incidents. I do not belittle anything that has happened in hon. Members' constituencies, but sometimes what seems the simplest way to do something is not the best way. That is why we need new clause 13 if we are serious about allowing our young people to have a future at Olympic games and world championships and to have the opportunity to represent their country in what is an incredibly disciplined and good sport.
      Jonathan Shaw: Hon. Members have presented reasonable cases for both sides of the argument in promoting their views on whether there should be further restrictions on firearms, as my hon. Friend the Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) advocates, or fewer restrictions, as some Conservative Members advocate. A powerful argument can be presented either way. It can be argued that it is reasonable for a young lad who lives on a farm to shoot rats in a barn or rabbits. As he lives in a rural area, he poses no danger. If we took a straw poll in Chatham high street and asked whether that should be allowed, most people would say, "Absolutely. What are the Government on about?"
      Equally, however, another case can be made. I wrote to 100 regional newspapers when I put a Bill together last year and became aware of the scores of incidents that occur. So it is also possible to ask whether it is reasonable for children below the age of 17 to be supervised if they are to use potentially deadly weapons. Both those arguments are reasonable. We need to drill down a bit, and find out who are the persistent offenders. They are youngsters under 17, they are mainly boys and they live in the inner city. Most incidents occur in the summer holidays, and their number is increasing. In 1997, there were 7,000 incidents, but in 2000–01 there were more than 10,000. I do not want to rehearse the debates that we had on Second Reading or when discussing my private Member's Bill, but those incidents are clearly rising and many of our constituents are concerned about them. It therefore behoves us to find a way to improve the situation, and it is reasonable to argue that 14 is too low an age limit.
      Mr. Paice: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's tremendous commitment on this issue. He referred to the increasing number of incidents, and I accept that that is the case. However, is he aware of the reverse statistic? The number of prosecutions for carrying a loaded air weapon in a public place has fallen
      970
      consistently year on year since 1996 and is now about 60 per cent. of what it was then. The law has not changed, so it seems odd that, at a time when the number of incidents is rising, there are fewer prosecutions. That makes me wonder whether it is the law that is at fault or, as I prefer to believe, the way in which it is enforced.
      Jonathan Shaw: Will the hon. Gentleman tell me what 60 per cent. represents?
      Mr. Paice: I am sorry, I was trying to be brief. There were 575 prosecutions in 1996, and the latest figures for 2001 show that that number fell to 360.
      Jonathan Shaw: I applaud the good work that the police are doing, but millions of these weapons are in circulation, and their nature means that that is covert, making detection difficult. We welcome the reduction in prosecutions, but that does not mean that 14-year-olds should be able to use those weapons. The Opposition believe that the Government should support new clause 13, but I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to stand her ground. A young person may go to a club such as the pony club mentioned by the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) to use potentially lethal weapons. It is therefore important that parents be responsible for ensuring that their children are taken to such places to use those weapons.
      Kate Hoey: Is my hon. Friend aware that our gold medallist in the pentathlon in the Sydney Olympics started off at a pony club and did all her work and shooting there? Does he understand the impact of the provision on our shooting prospects at the next Olympics, or does he not care?
      Jonathan Shaw: Of course I care about our prospects at the Olympics and opportunities for our young people. However, we are in a situation in which hundreds of people are losing their eyes or their lives. I shall not ask my hon. Friend whether she cares about those people, because I know that she does. We need to strike a balance. My hon. Friend should not throw those emotive arguments at me—of course I am concerned and want young people to do well.
      Kate Hoey: How do they travel?
      Jonathan Shaw: That is a reasonable question. We are talking about rural areas. The hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) said that he lived in a huge constituency and, in such cases, an appropriate place to shoot is not just down the road but miles away. It is likely therefore that the young person will be taken there by a parent. The key issue is whether that young person is going to a club or not, and I am concerned about the constable's ability to make that judgment. Our constables and police officers need clarity, but new clause 13 is ambiguous.
      6.45 pm
      Laura Moffatt: Does my hon. Friend agree that the issue of whether a parent or a responsible adult accompanies a young person to their club is very much about support for that young person? In many ways, it is about protecting and assisting that young person to

      971
      undertake the legitimate activity of target shooting. We must make sure that parents are responsible for ensuring that their children travel to and from those clubs safely and easily, thus encouraging them in their shooting activities.
      Jonathan Shaw: I rarely disagree with anything that my hon. Friend says. If a young person succeeds at a particular event at a sporting venue, 99 per cent. of the time their parents will be there. I do not believe that the problem will arise, but the key issue is the ambiguity created by new clause 13.
      The majority of offences are committed by youngsters under 17 in the summer holidays, generally in inner-city areas, which is why I support the Government's proposals, which are very similar to those in my Bill. I listened to what my hon. Friend the Minister said about premises, about which I was concerned and which I discussed with her. Again, I did not want any ambiguity. I should be grateful if she addressed that, as police officers on the ground should not have to deal with an ambiguous provision. She mentioned the £1,000 fine for firing outside premises, which is welcome, as we should all condemn people who use these weapons in an antisocial way to cause injury, whether to humans or wildlife. Ten thousand cats are killed, injured or maimed every year, and there are many other worrying statistics. Such incidents should not take place, as the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) said, but sadly they do, and we need to act. I therefore welcome the proposals in the Bill.
      Caroline Flint: It is clear that weapons of all kinds are lethal in the wrong hands, and air guns, of whatever type, in the wrong hands can be lethal, as has been demonstrated by my hon. Friends. In our amendments and the Bill, we are trying to find a way to deal with hon. Members' concerns, and I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw) acknowledged that we have gone some way towards meeting the concerns that he raised in his private Member's Bill. However, at the same time, we recognise that for a number of people shooting is a legitimate sport. It is not one that I have ever done or am particularly attracted to, but it is a sport that people pursue legally without harming anybody at all. We are therefore trying to strike a balance.
      Amendment (a) would extend liability for the new offence to whoever had lent the young person his weapon. I accept that that might be useful in adding a further incentive to all concerned to act responsibly, and I have given considerable thought to the proposal. However, there are concerns about how we would make it effective. As has already been said, a licence is not required for such weapons, so proving ownership may make it difficult to pursue the issue of liability.
      Even where a lender of a weapon had gone to great pains to explain to a young person that they must not shoot beyond the premises, it is not a requirement for the lender to be present when the weapon is being used, and it could therefore be argued that it would be unfair to hold him responsible for the young person's offence. In cases where a lender had not instructed the young
      972
      person in that way, it would be difficult for the police to prove otherwise. Although I was initially sympathetic to the amendment, it would be difficult to implement.
      On new clause 13, I listened carefully to the arguments from hon. Members on both sides of the House, but I am not convinced. The new clause would provide a further exception to the requirement for young people to be supervised when in possession of an air weapon. The main effect would be to allow 14 to 16-year-olds to carry unloaded air weapons without supervision when travelling to or from their home or shooting club, or when crossing public land on the way to shooting on private premises.
      The issue of carriage was raised in Committee. I know that shooting organisations are concerned that requiring supervision when travelling to and from clubs and shooting events would unduly hinder the activities of legitimate shooters. The law already provides exceptions to the requirement for adult supervision where a young person has an air weapon because he is a member of an approved shooting club, or uses it at a shooting gallery. We have listened to the concerns of hon. Members and of shooting organisations and have tabled amendments Nos. 3 to 7 and 9, which provide a further exception for young people who shoot on private land. However, I am not persuaded that yet another exception is justified. I can think of no compelling argument for allowing 14-year-olds to carry weapons around in public without the supervision of an adult.
      The requirement for the weapon to be unloaded and carried in a secure gun cover is superficially attractive, but would be open to abuse. What is there to stop young people taking weapons out of their covers, using them and then, having disposed of any remaining pellets, replacing them in the cover before an approaching policeman can challenge them? Even if the young person had no pellets with him, the weapon could easily be removed from its case and used to intimidate others. Also, there is nothing to stop other young people seizing the weapon and using it to intimidate others.
      As my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) rightly pointed out, it is not unreasonable to expect a parent or another adult to supervise a young shooter who is going to shoot on private premises or at an approved club. Millions of parents every week support their children in their sporting activities.
      New clause 6, which was moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland), approaches the problem of air weapon misuse by requiring more of these weapons to be held on firearms certificates granted by the police. The vast majority of air weapons are not powerful enough to fall within the existing certification process. However, there are arrangements requiring a certificate for high-powered air weapons, which pose a particular danger to the public. Such weapons have been designated as "specially dangerous" in the Firearms (Dangerous Air Weapons) Rules 1969. Under those rules, a certificate is required in order to hold an air pistol with a muzzle energy of 6 foot-pounds or about 8 joules, or any other air weapon with a muzzle energy of 12 foot-pounds or about 16 joules.
      The new clause would significantly lower these thresholds to 5.42 joules. It would also remove the differentiation between air pistols and other air

      973
      weapons. As a result, the new clause would bring many more types of air weapon into the certification process. When considering how to tackle airgun misuse, we considered whether to introduce some form of licensing regime for air weapons. We decided against that course of action because we felt it would be a disproportionate and costly reaction to the problem. I acknowledge that, as my hon. Friend mentioned, some police forces have joined local authorities in demanding that, but it was contrary to the advice that we received from the Association of Chief Police Officers. Rather than set up a costly licensing scheme that would penalise legitimate shooters, we felt it was better to target the small but significant minority of people who misuse their weapons. That is what the measures in the Bill seek to achieve.
      Amendments Nos. 70 to 73 would restrict the proposed ban on air weapons that use the self-contained gas cartridge system to those with a barrel length of less than 30 cm or to those that are less than 60 cm long—in common parlance, to handguns only. Furthermore, the ban would apply only in respect of such weapons that were readily convertible to fire ammunition that uses the force of gunpowder or other explosive material to discharge a missile. Those conditions not only apply to the specific provision to ban self-contained gas cartridge systems as set out in clause 44(3), but to the general order-making power in subsection (6).
      I remind the House why we are seeking to introduce stricter controls on specially dangerous air weapons. It is not because we want to ban a wide range of air weapons to make life difficult for legitimate users; it is because certain types of weapons are being converted and used in an increasing number of violent criminal acts, including murder and attempted murder. It is true that these conversions currently involve ammunition that uses some kind of explosive charge. It is also true that pistols and revolvers are currently the weapons of choice. But we must be mindful of the sort of people who want to use guns in a criminal way. They will always be on the lookout for an alternative source of weapons if one source is closed off. It is vital that we have flexible powers that allow us to address any new designs.
      As regards amendment No. 74, it is interesting that people are willing to give the Secretary of State an extremely wide power to remove any weapons or ammunition from the list of prohibited weapons, but are less prepared to see any additions, even though those must be limited to air weapons that are considered to be specially dangerous. I am aware that the present restrictions have caused some difficulties, but that is more appropriately addressed in the context of the review of firearms legislation generally, which we have promised.
      In the context of the clause, we have tried to meet the concerns of many hon. Members with different points of view. We have restricted the use of air guns. Through the provision for a fine, we have tried to make it clear that people who, in their back yard or garden or on a piece of land, fire beyond the boundaries of that area will be liable for a fine of up to £1,000. I should make it clear that for those under the age of 16, that would apply to their parents, as is the case with other fines. Air weapons are not toys. Considerable thought is required when they are used by children aged 14 to 17.
      974
      We have tried to reach a balance. I hope that the amendments will be withdrawn and the clause supported.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendments made: No. 4, in page 34, line 37, leave out 'and'.
      No. 5, in page 34, line 38, at end insert—
      '() in the entry relating to section 23(1) in the second column for "14" substitute "17",
      () after that entry insert—
      "Section 23(4)
      Person under 17 making improper use of air weapon on private premises.
      Summary
      A fine of level 3 on the standard scale.
      Paragraphs 7 and 8 of Part II of this Schedule apply.",
      and
      () in the entry relating to section 24(4) in the second column for "14" substitute "17".'
      No. 6, in page 34, line 40, leave out 'omit "or (5)",' and insert—
      'for "22(4) or (5), 23(1)" substitute "22(4), 23(1) or (4)",'.
      No. 7, in page 34, line 41, leave out
      ", (4) or (5)" substitute "or (4)".' and insert
      "'22(3), (4) or (5), 23(1)" substitute "22(3) or (4), 23(1) or (4)".'.—[Mr. Heppell.]

    Clause 44
      PROHIBITION OF CERTAIN AIR WEAPONS
      Amendment made: No. 8, in page 35, leave out line 9.—[Mr. Heppell.]
    Clause 48

      PENALTY NOTICES IN RESPECT OF GRAFFITI OR FLY-POSTING
      Ms Blears: I beg to move amendment No. 24, in page 38, line 18, at end insert—
      '(2A) In the case of a relevant offence falling within section 49(1)(f), an authorised officer may not give a notice to a person under subsection (1) in relation to the display of an advertisement unless he has reason to believe that that person personally affixed or placed the advertisement to, against or upon the land or object on which the advertisement is or was displayed.'.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments Nos. 25 and 26.
      Amendment No. 29, in page 42, line 9, clause 54, at end insert—
      'In paragraph (b) of Section 88(2) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 after 'penalty' insert 'and repairs any damage caused'.
      Amendment No. 80, in page 42, line 9, at end insert—
      '() Schedule 4 of the Environment Protection Act 1990 to be amended as follows:

      (a) at the end of paragraph 3(3) insert "and by way of demand make a charge to cover the local authority's cost of removing, transportation, storage and delivery".

      (b) after paragraph 3(4) insert—

      () "when the owner of a shopping or luggage trolley refuses to accept the return of any such trolley the local authority shall by way of demand charge the owner of such a trolley for the cost of removing, transportation, storage and disposal".'.
      Government new clause 14—Graffiti removal notices.
      Government new clause 15—Exemption from liability in relation to graffiti removal notices.
      Ms Blears: I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) had to leave the Chamber so cannot move his amendments Nos. 27 and 28. Those amendments were inappropriate. He sought to attach fixed penalty notices to the powers to close noisy premises. Fixed penalty notices are designed to provide an immediate response to low-level antisocial behaviour. If the situation in commercial premises has deteriorated to the extent that closure is contemplated, a fixed penalty notice would not be appropriate.
      The power set out in clause 46 enables senior environmental health officers to close noisy pubs and clubs. Amendment No. 27 would automatically associate the issuing of a fixed penalty notice with the exercise of that power. That is not a suitable response to the problem of noisy premises.
      I am sympathetic to the general principle behind amendments Nos. 28 and 29. They would place an additional punishment on the graffiti, litter or fly-posting offender, requiring him or her to repair any damage caused, in addition to receiving the notice. The Government are keen to enhance the role of reparation and restorative justice in dealing with offenders. That is why reparation is one of the new purposes of sentencing set out in the Criminal Justice Bill. It is important that offenders put right the damage that they have done, wherever that is practical. They should do so for an individual victim, if that is what the victim wants, or for the wider community, as with antisocial behaviour such as graffiti.
      7 pm
      However, the amendments would oblige a local authority to require an offender to repair damage in every case and could thereby create a number of practical problems relating to supervision and access to premises that may be dangerous. Should a local authority officer feel that it is more appropriate to require that damages be repaired than to issue a fixed penalty notice, there is always an option to take matters to court, where such an order could be made if it was felt to be appropriate.
      Amendment No. 80, which relates to clause 54, increases the powers available to local authorities to deal with fly tipping, including powers to stop, search
      976
      and seize vehicles and to investigate incidents. Those are very welcome powers, as fly tipping is a huge problem for communities. The amendment seeks not to change the purpose of the clause, but to give local authorities greater powers to charge owners for removal, transportation, storage and delivery of abandoned trolleys. The amendment appears to apply to clause 54 because it already amends a provision of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in respect of the way in which fly tipping is investigated and prosecuted.
      The proposal relating to shopping or luggage trolleys seeks to provide that local authorities can charge owners of abandoned trolleys the cost of removal, transportation, storage and delivery when they refuse to accept the return of their property. I am told that supermarket owners often refuse to accept the return of property as the sum that they are charged is almost equivalent to the cost of a new trolley. I sympathise with the amendment, as we need to ensure that trolleys that are collected and delivered to their owners are accepted by them, but I cannot support it at this stage. It would have a financial impact on supermarkets and trolley owners, and could also have an impact on local authorities, which would be required to administer the provision.
      We would like more time to consider the proposal and perhaps to carry out consultations about its impact, but I am certainly attracted to the principle that owners should be responsible for the environmental damage caused by wayward trolleys. The recent practice of imposing a £1 charge has been successful in ensuring that trolleys are returned. I shall ask my colleagues in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who are responsible for legislation relating to abandoned shopping trolleys, to consider what might be done about the issue.
      Government amendments Nos. 24 to 26 are technical and add a further relevant offence to the list already established in clause 49. Where there has been a contravention of town and country planning advertisement regulations but the offence is fairly minor, the person displaying and affixing the advertisement will be brought within the ambit of the fixed penalty notice regime. I think that such a provision is an appropriate addition to the Bill.
      Government new clauses 14 and 15 owe a great deal to the useful debate that took place in Committee. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) for her tenacity, determination and commitment in trying to ensure that her proposals were accepted. I know how passionately she feels about the issue and how much such action is supported by our constituents throughout the country. We have all seen the way in which cable boxes, bus shelters and railway sidings attract graffiti, and yet local authorities do not have a clear remit to clean it up. Local authorities that act responsibly and clean graffiti from property that does not belong to them are in the ridiculous position of being open to prosecution. In some cases, they are not willing to take such steps, the graffiti is not cleaned up, the public do not understand why their local representatives cannot intervene and there is huge frustration and anger all round.
      The new clauses allow councils to take action on behalf of their communities. They enable local authorities to serve a graffiti removal notice on the

      977
      persons responsible for the property covered in graffiti. If they do not remove it, the local authority can lawfully intervene and clean it up. The authority will be protected from damages claims so long as it exercises due care and attention—a perfectly reasonable provision.
      Chronic graffiti, fly posting, litter and noisy premises lead to an area becoming more run down, with a corresponding increase in crime and fear of crime. They undermine much of our regeneration agenda in local communities. Powers in the Bill to tackle offenders are clear and appropriate to the nature of the offence. The new clauses complement the powers in the rest of the Bill that are aimed at offenders who cause graffiti by freeing up authorities that are currently frustrated by their inability to tackle persistent eyesores that have a detrimental effect on their communities.
      I am genuinely grateful to my hon. Friends for raising this extremely important issue in Committee and pressing the Government to take action on it. I understand that the new clauses might not go as far as my hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden would have wanted in terms of charging. We have been concerned about the possible costs, but I say to her that, although we are not currently minded to accept the precise proposals that she made, we want to consider the matter further. I want to make it clear that we are not rejecting the proposals out of hand; we simply want to ensure that any costs are proportionate. I can therefore give her some further room for optimism about the clause.
      Concerns have been expressed to me about the noise provisions in clause 47. Several hon. Members, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Cleethorpes (Shona McIsaac), have asked whether the clause will apply to fireworks. I am pleased to tell her that it will apply to them in the context of domestic noise, subject to a fixed penalty notice of £100.
      Shona McIsaac: I thank my hon. Friend for clarifying that point, which I had warned her about. I know that many hundreds of hon. Members will be pleased that it has been put on record that the noise provisions in the Bill relate to fireworks. That will give some comfort to the many constituents who are faced with excessive noise caused by the abuse and misuse of fireworks. I thank her for putting that assurance on the record.
      Ms Blears: I am well aware that my hon. Friend, together with every other hon. Member in the Chamber, has been campaigning about fireworks. Petitions have been signed by hundreds and thousands of our constituents whose lives have been made a misery by the inappropriate use of fireworks. My hon. Friends will know that a private Member's Bill is under consideration that will introduce considerable controls in respect of firework use. None the less, I am delighted to confirm that the domestic noise provisions in the Bill before us are an additional measure allowing action to be taken.
      I commend the Government amendments and new clauses to the House. They will make a significant contribution to ensuring that our areas are clean and pleasant places for people to live in and that we will begin to tackle once and for all the scourge of graffiti, litter, fly posting and fly tipping, which have caused all
      978
      our constituents a great deal of concern and undermined much of our regeneration programme. The environment in which we live dictates the behaviour of people in our communities, and I am delighted that we are making significant progress on tackling those issues, which are of prime importance to those communities.
      Mr. Paice: I want to be extremely brief, as I would like to think that we will have a minute or two to debate the last group of amendments.
      The Government amendments are largely welcome. I am pleased that the Minister spoke about the cost impact of the proposals in Government new clauses 14 and 15. We all want to see the end of graffiti. At least, without being over-optimistic, we want it to be removed as quickly as possible, but we must bear it in mind that the property owner sometimes has no way of preventing graffiti from arising. Yes, we would like it to be removed as quickly as possible, so I accept the powers given to local authorities in new clause 14. None the less, we do not want to add unnecessary and unavoidable costs for property owners, whether they are commercial operations, public institutions or private owners. If they can find ways of preventing graffiti from being applied to their property, that is fine, but we would all accept that they cannot always do so, so I welcome the Minister's reluctance to go quite as far as the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) would have liked in that respect.
      The only other issue that I want to mention is that of shopping trolleys. For the life of me, I have never understood why British supermarkets do not use the practice that French hypermarkets have used for years, with returnable coin deposits.
      Shona McIsaac: Some do.
      Mr. Paice: Yes, I recognise that it is beginning to happen, but I cannot remember when it did not happen in France. I do not understand why it has not crossed the Channel more frequently, because it seems to be the obvious way of preventing the problem of dumped shopping trolleys, which we all recognise is an eyesore that causes blockages in rivers, streams, drains and so forth. The Minister is right to resist the amendment, but I hope that the supermarkets can deal with the matter directly and that that is perhaps beginning to happen. I certainly would not oppose the Government amendments.
      Siobhain McDonagh: I thank the Government for introducing new clauses 14 and 15. The issues that we have discussed today mean more to most of our constituents than almost anything else we ever discuss. It is not a party political issue, but a political issue in the widest sense. Unless we can reduce antisocial behaviour, at whatever level—from graffiti and fly tipping to youths gathering on street corners—we will see a decline in participation in our communities and in voting, because it will seem that we can do the big things, but we cannot allow people to feel safe in their own homes and environments. We must not raise people's expectations when we do not expect or intend to meet them.
      What worries me about new clauses 14 and 15 is that they give local authorities another power that they will not and cannot use. That is what happened with the

      979
      well-intentioned Environmental Protection Act 1990. I appreciate that that was introduced with the best of intentions, but it did not give local authorities the weapons truly to improve the environment. Unless we say that organisations—large privatised utilities and statutory undertakings—can and should pay to have the graffiti removed from their buildings, we will make no progress. Why should the elderly lady who is just managing to pay her council tax have to remove that graffiti? New clauses 14 and 15 say, in effect, that as council tax payers we and our constituents have not only to look after our own homes, but to look after those of everybody else as well. At some point, those in the big companies with multi-million pound budgets that festoon us with brochures and receptions should pay to remove the graffiti on the sub-station in the road where they never live.
      I say thank you to the Government, but we need to be able to use these powers and for people to see a difference. If we do not, people will disengage from all the processes of civic society. It is that important.
      Matthew Green: We add our support to the Government amendments and new clauses. The hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh) made a good case for passing the burden of cost on to statutory undertakings. That is a matter that the Government should seriously consider. There is a danger that, with their budgets under pressure, the power may be one that councils want, but cannot afford, to use. We need to ensure, one way or another, that councils are not prevented from using it by the burden of cost.
      The other amendments in the group, which are Labour Back-Bench amendments, are well intentioned, but none of them would work in practice. We all understand the issue of shopping trolleys. The returnable deposit may be the solution in the short and the long term. One of the difficulties with amendment No. 80 is that it refers to recovering the cost of destroying shopping trolleys. From an environmental point of view, we do not want supermarket trolleys to be destroyed, whoever is paying for it: we want them to be continually reused for the purpose for which they are intended. The deposit scheme would achieve that.
      7.15 pm
      The Government amendments solve some of the problems that existed in the Bill in relation to graffiti. We particularly welcome amendments Nos. 24, 25 and 26, which clarify exactly who gets the fixed penalty notice when fly posting occurs. As regards people from a commercial organisation fly posting or sticking leaflets on windscreens, in effect littering the place, concern was expressed in Committee that a £40 or £50 fine will not deter such an organisation from doing that. Amendment No. 24 makes it clear that the fine applies to the person who carries it out, which will hopefully deter them. Perhaps there will be other legislation to deter companies in other ways.
      This is a welcome group of Government amendments and new clauses, and they certainly have our support.
      Valerie Davey: I want briefly to thank the Minister for her positive response to amendment
      980
      No. 80. Bristol city council and councils around the country will be encouraged that the Government are showing this level of interest. Everyone understands the problem but has no answer to it. I alert the Government to the fact that the deposit scheme for trolleys is not the answer. It is fairly widespread in Bristol, but trolleys are still dumped. For example, 18 were recovered from 20 m of a stream. People simply dump them and take the deposit money out. It is not the answer. I accept the Minister's confirmation that it needs further investigation and again welcome the Government's response.
      Dr. Vincent Cable: I, too, want to speak strongly in support of the amendments and the spirit behind them, as the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) is not here, and to endorse the comments of the hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Siobhain McDonagh). Graffiti is the bane of many of our constituencies. About four years ago, I secured an Adjournment debate on the subject. I was told, and I certainly claimed, that it was the first debate on graffiti that we had ever had in this House, and it proved an extraordinarily popular undertaking.
      Amendment agreed to.
      It being five hours after the commencement of proceedings on the programme motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of business to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to Order [this day.]

    Clause 49

      MEANING OF RELEVANT OFFENCE
      Amendment made: No. 25, in page 39, line 17, at end insert—
      '(f) an offence under section 224(3) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (c.8) (displaying advertisement in contravention of regulations).'.— [Mr. Heppell]

    Clause 52

      INTERPRETATION
      Amendment made: No, 26, in page 40, line 32, at end insert—
      '"advertisement" and "land" have the meanings given by section 336(1) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (c. 8),'.—[Mr. Heppell]

    New Clause 14

      GRAFFITI REMOVAL NOTICES
      '(1) This section applies where a local authority is satisfied—

      (a) that a relevant surface in an area has been defaced by graffiti, and

      (b) that the defacement is detrimental to the amenity of the area or is offensive.

      (2) The authority may serve a notice (a "graffiti removal notice") upon any person who is responsible for the surface imposing the requirement mentioned in subsection (3).
      (3) That requirement is a requirement that the defacement be removed, cleared or otherwise remedied within a period specified in the notice being not less than 28 days beginning with the day on which the notice is served.
      (4) If the requirement mentioned in subsection (3) is not complied with, the authority or any person authorised by the authority may remove, clear or otherwise remedy the defacement.
      (5) In exercising the power under subsection (4) the authority or any person authorised by the authority may enter any land to the extent reasonably necessary for that purpose.
      (6) Subject to subsection (7), section 160 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (c. 43) has effect in relation to graffiti removal notices as if they were notices within subsection (2) of that section.
      (7) Where after reasonable enquiry a local authority is unable to ascertain the name or proper address of any person who is responsible for a relevant surface, the authority may—

      (a) affix a graffiti removal notice to the surface, and

      (b) enter any land to the extent reasonably necessary for that purpose;

      and that notice shall be treated as having been served upon a person responsible for the surface.
      (8) In this section a "relevant surface" is any of the following surfaces, whether internal or external or open to the air or not—

      (a) the surface of any street or of any building, structure, apparatus, plant or other object in or on any street;

      (b) the surface of any land owned, occupied or controlled by a statutory undertaker or of any building, structure, apparatus, plant or other object in or on any such land;

      (c) the surface of any land owned, occupied or controlled by an educational institution (including its governing body) or of any building, structure, apparatus, plant or other object in or on any such land.

      (9) But a surface is not a relevant surface unless—

      (a) in the case of a surface within subsection (8)(a), the street is public land;

      (b) in the case of a surface within subsection (8)(b) or (c)—

      (i) the land is public land,

      (ii) the surface is visible from public land, or

      (iii) the surface is otherwise visible to members of the public using the services or facilities of the statutory undertaker or educational institution in question or any other statutory undertaker or educational institution.

      (10) A person is responsible for a relevant surface if—

      (a) where it is the surface of any land (including a street), he owns, leases, occupies, controls, operates or maintains the land, and

      (b) where it is the surface of any other thing mentioned in subsection (8), he owns. leases, occupies, controls, operates or maintains the thing.

      (11) In this section and in section (Exemption from liability in relation to graffiti removal notices)—
      "educational institution" has the meaning given by section 98(2) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (c. 43),
      "graffiti" includes painting, writing, soiling, marking or other defacing by whatever means,
      "local authority" means an authority in England and Wales which is a litter authority for the purposes of section 88 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (c. 43),
      "proper address" is to be read in accordance with section 160(4) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (c. 43),
      "public land" means land to which the public are entitled or permitted to have access with or without payment (including any street to which the public are so entitled or permitted),
      "statutory undertaker" has the meaning given by section 98(6) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (c. 43),
      "street" has the meaning given by section 48(1) of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 (c.22).'.[Mr. Heppell.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 15

      EXEMPTION FROM LIABILITY IN RELATION TO GRAFFITI REMOVAL NOTICES
      '(1) None of the persons mentioned in subsection (2) is to have any liability for damages or otherwise (whether at common law or otherwise) arising out of anything done or omitted to be done in the exercise or purported exercise of—

      (a) the power ander subsection (4) of section (Graffiti removal notices) (including as provided for in subsection (5) of that section), or

      (b) the power under subsection (7) of that section.

      (2) Those persons are—

      (a) in the case of the power mentioned in subsection (1)(a)—

      (i) the local authority and any employee of the authority, and

      (ii) any person authorised by the authority under section (Graffiti removal notices) (4) and the employer or any employee of that person, and

      (b) in the case of the power mentioned in subsection (1)(b), the local authority and any employee of the authority.

      (3) Subsection (1) does not apply—

      (a) if the act or omission is shown to have been in bad faith;

      (b) to liability arising out of a failure to exercise due care and attention;

      (c) so as to prevent an award of damages made in respect of an act or omission on the ground that the act or omission was unlawful by virtue of section 6(1) of the Human Rights Act 1998 (c. 42);

      (d) to liability that any person mentioned in subsection (2) may have to any employee of his.

      (4) This section does not affect any other exemption from liability (whether at common law or otherwise).'.—[Mr. Heppell.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 16

      POWER TO REMOVE TRESPASSERS: ALTERNATIVE SITE AVAILABLE
      'After section 62 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (c. 33) insert—
      "62A Power to remove trespassers: alternative site available
      (1) If the senior police officer present at a scene reasonably believes that the conditions in subsection (2) are satisfied in relation to a person and land, he may direct the person—

      (a) to leave the land;

      (b) to remove any vehicle and other property he has with him on the land.

      (2) The conditions are—

      (a) that the person and one or more others ("the trespassers") are trespassing on the land;

      (b) that the trespassers have between them at least one vehicle on the land;

      (c) that the trespassers are present on the land with the common purpose of residing there for any period;

      (d) if it appears to the officer that the person has one or more caravans in his possession or under his control on the land, that there is a pitch on a relevant caravan site for that caravan or each of those caravans;

      (e) that the occupier of the land or a person acting on his behalf has asked the police to remove the trespassers from the land.

      (3) A direction under subsection (1) may be communicated to the person to whom it applies by any constable at the scene.
      (4) In this section—
      "caravan" and "caravan site" have the same meanings as in Part 1 of the Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960;
      "relevant caravan site" means a caravan site which is—

      (a) situated in the area of a local authority within whose area the land is situated, and

      (b) managed by a relevant site manager;

      "relevant site manager" means—

      (a) a local authority within whose area the land is situated;

      (b) a registered social landlord;

      "registered social landlord" means a body registered as a social landlord under Chapter 1 of Part 1 of the Housing Act 1996.
      (5) The Secretary of State may by order amend the definition of "relevant site manager" in subsection (4) by adding a person or description of person.
      (6) An order under subsection (5) must be made by statutory instrument and is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.".'.
      —[Mr. Heppell]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 17

      FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH DIRECTION: OFFENCES
      'After section 62A of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (c. 33) (inserted by section (Power to remove trespassers: alternative site available)) insert—
      "62B Failure to comply with direction under section 62A: offences
      (1) A person commits an offence if he knows that a direction under section 62A(1) has been given which applies to him and—

      (a) he fails to leave the relevant land as soon as reasonably practicable, or

      (b) he enters any land in the area of the relevant local authority as a trespasser before the end of the relevant period with the intention of residing there.

      (2) The relevant period is the period or 3 months starting with the day on which the direction is given.
      (3) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale or both.
      (4) A constable in uniform who reasonably suspects that a person is committing an offence under this section may arrest him without a warrant.
      (5) In proceedings for an offence under this section it is a defence for the accused to show—

      (a) that he was not trespassing on the land in respect of which he is alleged to have committed the offence, or

      (b) that he had a reasonable excuse—

      (i) for failing to leave the relevant land as soon as reasonably practicable, or

      (ii) for entering land in the area of the relevant local authority as a trespasser with the intention of residing there, or

      (c) that, at the time the direction was given, he was under the age of 18 years and was residing with his parent or guardian.".'.

      —[Mr. Heppell.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 18

      FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH DIRECTION: SEIZURE
      (1) 'After section 62B of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (c. 33) (inserted by section (Failure to comply with direction: offences)) insert—
      "62C Failure to comply with direction under section 62A: seizure
      (1) This section applies if a direction has been given under section 62A(1) and a constable reasonably suspects that a person to whom the direction applies has, without reasonable excuse—

      (a) failed to remove any vehicle on the relevant land which appears to the constable to belong to him or to be in his possession or under his control; or

      (b) entered any land in the area of the relevant local authority as a trespasser with a vehicle before the end of the relevant period with the intention of residing there.

      (2) The relevant period is the period of 3 months starting with the day on which the direction is given.
      (3) The constable may seize and remove the vehicle."
      (2) In section 67(1) (retention and charges for seized vehicles) after "section 62(1)" insert ", 62C(3)".'.
      —[Mr. Heppell.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 19

      COMMON LAND: MODIFICATIONS
      'After section 62C of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (c. 33) (inserted by section (Failure to comply with direction: seizure)) insert—
      "62D Common land: modifications
      (1) In their application to common land sections 62A to 62C have effect with these modifications.
      (2) References to trespassing and trespassers have effect as if they were references to acts, and persons doing acts, which constitute—

      (a) a trespass as against the occupier, or

      (b) an infringement of the commoners' rights.

      (3) References to the occupier—

      (a) in the case of land to which the public has access, include the local authority and any commoner;

      (b) in any other case, include the commoners or any of them.

      (4) Subsection (1) does not—

      (a) require action by more than one occupier, or

      (b) constitute persons trespassers as against any commoner or the local authority if they are permitted to be there by the other occupier.

      (5) In this section "common land", "commoner" and "the local authority" have the meanings given by section 61."'
      —[Mr. Heppell.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

      New Clause 20

        INTERPRETATION
        'After section 62D of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (c. 33) (inserted by section (Common land: modifications)) insert—
        "62E Sections 62A to 62D: interpretation
        (1) Subsections (2) to (8) apply for the interpretation of sections 62A to 62D and this section.
        (2) "Land" does not include buildings other than—

        (a) agricultural buildings within the meaning of paragraphs 3 to 8 of Schedule 5 to the Local Government Finance Act 1988, or

        (b) scheduled monuments within the meaning of the Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act 1979.

        (3) "Local authority" means—

        (a) in Greater London, a London borough or the Common Council of the City of London;

        (b) in England outside Greater London, a county council, a district council or the Council of the Isles of Scilly;

        (c) in Wales, a county council or a county borough council.

        (4) "Occupier", "trespass", "trespassing" and "trespasser" have the meanings given by section 61 in relation to England and Wales.
        (5) "The relevant land" means the land in respect of which a direction under section 62A(1) is given.
        (6) "The relevant local authority" means—

        (a) if the relevant land is situated in the area of more than one local authority (but is not in the Isles of Scilly), the district council or county borough council within whose area the relevant land is situated;

        (b) if the relevant land is situated in the Isles of Scilly, the Council of the Isles of Scilly;

        (c) in any other case, the local authority within whose area the relevant land is situated.

        (7) "Vehicle" has the meaning given by section 61.
        (8) A person may be regarded as having a purpose of residing in a place even if he has a home elsewhere."'
        —[Mr. Heppell.]
        Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

      New Clause 21

        AGGRAVATED TRESPASS
        (1) The Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (c. 33) is amended as follows.
        (2) In section 68 (offence of aggravated trespass), in subsection (1) (which defines the offence by reference to trespass on land in the open air and lawful activity on land in the open air) omit "in the open air" in both places where those words appear.
        (3) In section 69 (powers to remove persons committing or participating in aggravated trespass), in subsection (1) (which confers the power by reference to trespass on land in the open air) omit "in the open air" in both places where those words appear:— [Mr. Heppell.]
        Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

      New Clause 22

        PUBLIC ASSEMBLIES
        'In section 16 of the Public Order Act 1986 (c. 64) (which defines "public assembly" for the purposes of the power in section 14 of that Act to impose conditions on public assemblies), in the definition of "public assembly" for "20" substitute "2".'—[Mr. Heppell.]
        Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

      Schedule 3

        REPEALS
        Amendments made: No. 9, in page 55, leave out lines 8 and 9.
        No. 79, in page 55, line 13, at end insert—
        'Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (c. 33)
        In section 68(1), "in the open air" in both places.
        In section 69(1), "in the open air" in both places.'
        No. 34, in page 55, column 2, leave out line 24 and insert—
        'In Schedule 6—
        (a) in paragraph 3(2), the words "and paragraph 4 below" and paragraph (e), and (b) paragraph 4.'.—[Mr. Heppell.]

      Clause 57

        COMMENCEMENT
        Amendment made: No. 32, in page 43, line 6, after 'Act', insert
        '(other than subsections (8) to (10) of section 36)'.—[Mr. Heppell.]

      Clause 60

        EXTENT
        Amendment made: No. 78, in page 43, line 33, after '7' insert
        'and sections (Power to remove trespassers: alternative site available) to (Public assemblies)'—[Mr. Heppell.]
        Order for Third Reading read.
        7.18 pm
        The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
        I want to thank not only my hon. Friends on the Front Bench for their sterling efforts today, but my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth) and his colleagues who saw the Bill through Committee. I commend Members of all parties who served on the Committee for the extremely vigorous way in which the Bill was dealt with, especially by my own Back-Benchers who think that I am not going far enough. I should like them to write an article in The Independent newspaper explaining why I am not tough and courageous enough in dealing with these issues, which would undoubtedly change my image enormously overnight with its readers. I shall be brief, as I realise that the Third Reading debate is truncated owing to the very serious statement that has to be made afterwards, and I want other hon. Members to be able to take part.
        The truth of the Bill is that we can give people the powers to do the job—whether in housing, environmental health, the police service or local government more broadly—and we can encourage the local community to take up the issues and to be part of the solution, but unless the people who have the power at their disposal are prepared to use it, and unless the

        987
        magistrates and district judges are prepared to enforce it, all of us in Committee and on the Floor of the House will have wasted our time.
        Mr. Frank Field: The Bill, like similar legislation that my right hon. Friend has introduced, is crucial in dealing with the most fundamental changes occurring in our society. Does he agree that, while we can legislate, we need to see the measures enacted locally? I hope that, when the Bill goes to the Lords, my proposal for a pilot scheme for electing community prosecution officers will be seriously considered.
        Mr. Blunkett: I knew that my right hon. Friend would get that in. It is a very interesting idea. In regard to the pamphlet that I published a couple of weeks ago and the discussions that I have been having with the Attorney-General, it will undoubtedly feature in terms of how we lift the profile of prosecution and, above all, how we ensure that the voice of the community—not a vicious, reactionary, mob-rule voice—is heard on behalf of the victim and of those who face the scourge of antisocial behaviour.
        I appeal to magistrates to ensure that breaches of orders or of bail, and sheer antisocial actions within the courts, are dealt with decisively. There are so many examples now of action being taken. In the past, quite lengthy bureaucracy has been struggled through, local residents have patiently kept diaries and appealed to housing authorities to be decisive and to send the right signals to ensure that the message got across, yet when the case was brought, the defendant was patted on the head as though they were on a Sunday school outing. I am not talking about first-time offenders here. Of course we are all in favour of rehabilitation and restitution, and of ensuring that we give people a chance. We are in favour of preventive action and of intervention. The diversionary schemes that were so important over the holiday period last year worked, and could work again this summer.
        We are also going to send a message to the thugs and mindless vandals. We are going to send a message to those in Wrexham last night who were engaged in nothing but sheer mindless thuggery and antisocial behaviour, while trying to present a picture that they were somehow engaged in some activity to do with social cohesion. They were simply causing mayhem and disorder, and we will clamp down on them wherever and whenever such behaviour occurs. If everyone will join us—regardless of party, and without rancour or division—in getting this right, we can change that culture. We can change society back to create more orderly, less brutal and more acceptable neighbourhoods.
        The amendments that have gone through in Committee and today are a measure of improvement, whether they relate to housing and are linked to the Bill that will be taken through by my hon. Friends in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, to residential orders, to the action on graffiti, or to unauthorised encampments.
        Liz Blackman rose—
        Mr. John Denham rose—
        Mr. Blunkett: My goodness me! Gender before beauty—no! I meant that I shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Liz Blackman) first.
        Liz Blackman: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. He has rightly pointed out that the Bill will not be worth the paper that it is written on unless its measures are enforced, and we all have a role to play in that. Could he just flesh out a little more what role the Government will play in that, because we have a lot to learn about the progress of antisocial behaviour orders? They are implemented in some areas of the country, but still not in others. How do we drive up the effective action of local partnerships in the areas in which these issues are not being taken seriously at the moment?
        Mr. Blunkett: Significant progress has been made. I think that about 1,000 orders have now been taken out, along with the interim orders, and progress is being made rapidly. I invite Members from all parties to make contact with the new antisocial behaviour unit, which is a cross-government operation headed by the tenacious Louise Casey, who makes one or two of my friends on the Back Benches look quite mild when dealing with these matters. Members should get in touch because we will be able to provide support, help, guidance and, above all, rigour in terms of what local people need.
        We are not just working with the agencies or the departments in local authorities; we are working with local neighbourhood groups such as neighbourhood watch and others. This will represent a new style for the Government. Yes, we are putting the powers in place, but we are also empowering people to be able to use them themselves. I think that that will make a difference.
        The moment I mentioned encampments, my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) tried to intervene on me, and I promised to give way to him. I shall do so now.
        Mr. Denham: I welcome my right hon. Friend's introduction into the Bill of the measures on travellers. This will raise expectations in the country, so will he take this opportunity to stress that the new clauses will require implementation by the police and clear action by the local authorities to develop temporary camp sites, to enable the powers to be usable? The public need to expect the local authorities to take such action so that these welcome measures will have the effect that people want them to have.
        Mr. Blunkett: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for making that point. He not only nurtured this issue because of his experience of it in his constituency; he also parented the early part of the Bill with my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East. I thank him for that, and I want to ensure that the time that he spent and the work that he did will not be wasted.
        I would also like to mention aggravated trespass and police conditions on assemblies, because these measures will help us enormously in dealing with the so-called animal rights activists who are vandals and terrorists in

        989
        their own right. I have to say that, sadly, many of them are also engaged in criminality to fund their activities. We may disagree on some of the detail in the Bill and on whether we shall be able to enforce everything in it. What none of us disagrees on, however, is that it is necessary to take this action.
        7.26 pm
        Mr. Paice: The Home Secretary has referred to the importance of the Bill, and he is absolutely right. It seeks to address an issue that is, as became obvious throughout the proceedings of the Committee, of great concern to every one of us, whichever part of the country or political party we represent. A number of provisions in the Bill have caused concern. I, too, want to thank the former Minister, the hon. Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth) and, indeed, the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), who appeared once or twice during the proceedings, for the constructive way in which they addressed the Committee's proceedings and the amendments that we had tabled.
        I have been encouraged by today's results because, by my reckoning, there are at least eight separate areas in which the Government have come forward with amendments or new clauses addressing issues that we raised in Committee. The hon. Member for Coventry, North-East gesticulates; I appreciate his having taken our points seriously. Many of those amendments are almost the same, word for word, as those that I tabled in Committee. Obviously, that gives me some pleasure. It also demonstrates that the Government have listened to our arguments, and I welcome that.
        I particularly want to refer to two of the issues that the Home Secretary has just mentioned. The first is the issue of travellers, to which the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) referred. We debated that at considerable length in Committee as a result of new clauses that I had tabled, and I very much welcome the two new clauses that the Government have tabled. Questions remain to be asked, however, which will need to be pursued in another place, particularly on the issue of alternative sites. The right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen referred to the importance of the police and local authorities playing their part in enforcing the legislation. I hope that the issue of alternative sites will not be a loophole that will mean that the whole clause cannot be properly put into effect. We shall need to pursue that matter in another place.
        The new provisions on aggravated trespass and assemblies, to which the Home Secretary also referred, are almost exactly the same, word for word, as those that I tabled in Committee, and I very much welcome them. The Home Secretary rightly condemned the so-called animal rights activists. This is not about the rights and wrongs of animal experimentation; it is about the ability of legitimate firms and their employees to go about their daily business without intimidation or threat.
        I welcome the Government's agreement to those amendments, which were suggested by the Bioindustry Association. I also welcome the measures that the Government have so far taken on airguns. I remain of the view that some of the other new clauses need further attention, and we will raise those matters in the other place.
        990
        One of the themes throughout the debate in Committee, which was taken up again just now by the hon. Member for Erewash (Liz Blackman), was enforcement. The Home Secretary referred to the fact that we can pass the legislation but others have to enforce it. On Second Reading, the Opposition's view was that much of the Bill was unnecessary, as we believed that many of the powers that the Government were providing already existed in different forms, and what was necessary was that they should be properly enforced. The Government have proceeded with the Bill and have introduced these powers, some of them with the amendments that I have described.
        It is absolutely clear that it does not matter how many powers are provided in legislation, unless all the forces of law and order are prepared to implement them effectively, our efforts are as nought. Although I remain of the view that some of the powers in the Bill are unnecessary, and that existing legislation, if properly enforced, could have dealt with the problems, I am extremely anxious that, having gone through this process, these powers in different sectors are properly enforced.
        I rarely, as a matter of practice, refer to detailed constituency affairs, but I want to mention a short letter received from the Crown Prosecution Service. I shall paraphrase it because I do not want the case to be identifiable. Two youths broke into school premises, and they were arrested and charged by Cambridgeshire police. The CPS has written to the head teacher of that secondary school and said that it will not prosecute those youths, because it believes that the resulting sentence is likely to be extremely light and thus would give the wrong signal to those who might commit such offences. I have written to the CPS asking what signal does it think that gives. I am happy to send the Home Secretary the text of the letter.
        Obviously, it would be wrong to identify the case at the present time, but it shows the uphill task that we face. The Home Secretary describes a world in which we can restore some semblance of law and order on our streets and deal with this low level crime of antisocial behaviour. It is a world in which people feel that their community belongs to them, not to the louts. If we are to achieve that, it will require everyone's best efforts.
        Despite our reservations, we believe that the Bill goes some way towards that goal. Therefore, we do not oppose it. Some provisions need to be improved, but we wish it well and, more importantly, we wish its enforcement well.
        7.33 pm
        Simon Hughes: I associate myself with the tone of the contributions made by the Home Secretary and the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice). We are all charged with finding a way to reduce antisocial behaviour and to create a society in which greater respect is shown by one person for another. We may have differences about how we achieve that, but that is certainly a common objective.
        I expressly share the Home Secretary's views about the events in Wrexham over the past couple of days, and I wish to associate myself with his comments on that subject. I commend the work of the police, who were confronted with an unacceptable series of events. I also

        991
        commend the local elected representatives. I heard the mayor speak this morning, and he was clear that there was no justification for such lawless, unacceptable intolerance, especially as it was founded on a specious premise. That community has traditionally been happy, prosperous and settled. If it cannot, with understanding and compassion, accommodate a few people who have been accepted into the community, there is something severely wrong with the perpetrators of those crimes.
        The Home Secretary and his colleagues will know that my hon. Friends and I agree with some parts of the Bill, such as part 1 dealing with crack houses. Clearly, we all sign up to those proposals, and we need to get them right. We also welcome the proposals on firearms. It is important that we get a grip of the antisocial use of firearms in both urban and rural areas.
        Ministers will also appreciate that we have differences of principle. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole (Mrs. Brooke), supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green), sought in Committee to put our amendments. They did not prevail, so we must ask ourselves whether, if we were in government, we would want the Bill on the statute book, and the answer is no" as there is still a lot to do to it. We will divide the House on Third Reading to register that view.
        We are concerned about the process that takes people too quickly from demoted tenancy to losing their house. We also think that it is entirely inappropriate for teachers or school staff to serve fixed penalty notices under part 3. The argument may be made for the director of education or the senior education welfare officer to do that, but it is not a job that should be given to teachers or to the people responsible for the welfare and support of children.
        Mr. Denham: Will the hon. Gentleman ensure that his opposition to these measures is included in every Liberal Democrat leaflet that is given out up and down the country?
        Simon Hughes: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that my colleagues and I have been clear that antisocial behaviour, properly defined, is entirely unacceptable. However, we believe that the best method to deal with that is not increased, discriminatory, authoritarian powers, but a proactive, supportive approach. There should be alternative activities for young people, and more resources, more police, more community support officers and the rest. We have been clear that we support some measures but not others.
        We made clear our opposition to the powers to disperse groups, which we believe are unnecessary. There are many powers on the statute book that can be used. Many people outside the House share our view that these powers go far too far. The objection to the fixed penalty notices in part 5 is that the pilot has not yet finished and we have not seen the evidence. There is no case yet for extending that measure, let alone extending it to teenagers and to children aged 10 upwards. It is unacceptable that those who are least likely to pay or to be able to afford to pay, and against whom the measure is least likely to be enforced, should be subject to a new fine collecting system that has not been tried and tested.
        992
        We accept some parts of the Bill, but it is entirely unacceptable that people of 16 or 17, who are adults, can go to work, pay taxes and serve their country, are not allowed to buy cans of spray paint that they can use legitimately.
        We have made our position clear. We will work with the Government, despite our differences in this place. We hope that the indication from the Home Secretary, from Ministers and from Conservative Front-Bench Members will be that further work will be done on the Bill in the House of Lords. We hope that, by the time that it ends its passage in the House of Lords, it will be a much better Bill. We will work to win by argument what we have not won today by vote. We hope that the Government realise that it is the positive, proactive alternatives that reduce crime and deal with the causes of crime. That was our view at the beginning; that remains our view now. We will continue to argue that view both today and during the remaining stages of the Bill.
        Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
        The House divided: Ayes 419, Noes 43.

        Division No. 252]

        [7:39 pm

        AYES

        Abbott, Ms Diane

        Burgon, Colin

        Ainger, Nick

        Burnham, Andy

        Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

        Burns, Simon

        Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

        Burt, Alistair

        Alexander, Douglas

        Butterfill, John

        Amess, David

        Byers, rh Stephen

        Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

        Caborn, rh Richard

        Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

        Cairns, David

        Atherton, Ms Candy

        Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

        Atkins, Charlotte

        Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

        Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

        Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

        Bacon, Richard

        Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

        Bailey, Adrian

        Caplin, Ivor

        Barker, Gregory

        Cash, William

        Barnes, Harry

        Caton, Martin

        Baron, John (Billericay)

        Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

        Battle, John

        Challen, Colin

        Beard, Nigel

        Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

        Begg, Miss Anne

        Chaytor, David

        Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

        Chope, Christopher

        Bellingham, Henry

        Clapham, Michael

        Benn, Hilary

        Clappison, James

        Bennett, Andrew

        Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

        Benton, Joe (Bootle)

        Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

        Bercow, John

        Best, Harold

        Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

        Blackman, Liz

        Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

        Blears, Ms Hazel

        Blunkett, rh David

        Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

        Blunt, Crispin

        Clelland, David

        Borrow, David

        Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

        Boswell, Tim

        Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

        Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

        Coaker, Vernon

        Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

        Coffey, Ms Ann

        Coleman, Iain

        Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

        Collins, Tim

        Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

        Colman, Tony

        Bradshaw, Ben

        Connarty, Michael

        Brady, Graham

        Conway, Derek

        Brazier, Julian

        Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

        Brennan, Kevin

        Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

        Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

        Corston, Jean

        Browning, Mrs Angela

        Cousins, Jim

        Bryant, Chris

        Cranston, Ross

        Buck, Ms Karen

        Cruddas, Jon

        993

        Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

        Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

        Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

        Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

        Cummings, John

        Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

        Hayes, John (S Holland)

        Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

        Healey, John

        Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

        Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

        Dalyell, Tam

        Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

        Darling, rh Alistair

        Hendrick, Mark

        Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

        Hendry, Charles

        David, Wayne

        Hepburn, Stephen

        Davidson, Ian

        Heppell, John

        Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

        Hermon, Lady

        Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

        Hesford, Stephen

        Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

        Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

        Hinchliffe, David

        Dean, Mrs Janet

        Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

        Denham, rh John

        Hodge, Margaret

        Dhanda, Parmjit

        Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

        Dobson, rh Frank

        Hoon, rh Geoffrey

        Dodds, Nigel

        Hope, Phil (Corby)

        Donohoe, Brian H.

        Hopkins, Kelvin

        Doran, Frank

        Horam, John (Orpington)

        Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

        Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

        Drew, David (Stroud)

        Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

        Howells, Dr. Kim

        Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

        Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

        Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

        Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

        Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

        Edwards, Huw

        Humble, Mrs Joan

        Efford, Clive

        Hume, John (Foyle)

        Ellman, Mrs Louise

        Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

        Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

        Iddon, Dr. Brian

        Evans, Nigel

        Illsley, Eric

        Ewing, Annabelle

        Irranca-Davies, Huw

        Fabricant, Michael

        Jack, rh Michael

        Fallon, Michael

        Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

        Farrelly, Paul

        Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

        Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

        Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

        Jamieson, David

        Jenkin, Bernard

        Fisher, Mark

        Jenkins, Brian

        Fitzpatrick, Jim

        Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

        Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

        Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

        Flight, Howard

        Flint, Caroline

        Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

        Flook, Adrian

        Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

        Follett, Barbara

        Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

        Forth, rh Eric

        Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

        Foster, rh Derek

        Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

        Foster, Michael (Worcester)

        Jowell, rh Tessa

        Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

        Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

        Kaufman, rh Gerald

        Francis, Dr. Hywel

        Keeble, Ms Sally

        Francois, Mark

        Keen, Alan (Feltham)

        Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

        Kemp, Fraser

        Gardiner, Barry

        Khabra, Piara S.

        Garnier, Edward

        Kidney, David

        Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

        Kilfoyle, Peter

        Gibson, Dr. Ian

        King, Andy (Rugby)

        Gilroy, Linda

        King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

        Godsiff, Roger

        Goggins, Paul

        Kirkbride, Miss Julie

        Goodman, Paul

        Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

        Grayling, Chris

        Laing, Mrs Eleanor

        Green, Damian (Ashford)

        Lait, Mrs Jacqui

        Greenway, John

        Lammy, David

        Grieve, Dominic

        Leigh, Edward

        Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

        Lepper, David

        Grogan, John

        Leslie, Christopher

        Gummer, rh John

        Letwin, rh Oliver

        Hague, rh William

        Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

        Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

        Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

        Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

        Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

        Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

        Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

        Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

        Liddell-Grainger, Ian

        Hanson, David

        Lidington, David

        994

        Lilley, rh Peter

        Plaskitt, James

        Loughton, Tim

        Pollard, Kerry

        Love, Andrew

        Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

        Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

        Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

        Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

        Portillo, rh Michael

        Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

        Pound, Stephen

        Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

        Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

        McAvoy, Thomas

        Primarolo, rh Dawn

        McCabe, Stephen

        Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

        McCartney, rh Ian

        Prosser, Gwyn

        McDonagh, Siobhain

        Purchase, Ken

        MacDonald, Calum

        Purnell, James

        McDonnell, John

        Rammell, Bill

        MacDougall, John

        Randall, John

        McIntosh, Miss Anne

        Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

        McIsaac, Shona

        Raynsford, rh Nick

        Mackay, rh Andrew

        Redwood, rh John

        McKechin, Ann

        Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

        Mackinlay, Andrew

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

        Maclean, rh David

        McLoughlin, Patrick

        Robathan, Andrew

        McNulty, Tony

        Robertson, Angus (Moray)

        MacShane, Denis

        Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

        Mactaggart, Fiona

        McWalter, Tony

        Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

        McWilliam, John

        Mahon, Mrs Alice

        Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

        Mallaber, Judy

        Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

        Mandelson, rh Peter

        Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

        Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

        Roe, Mrs Marion

        Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

        Rooney, Terry

        Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

        Rosindell, Andrew

        Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

        Ruane, Chris

        Martlew, Eric

        Ruddock, Joan

        Maude, rh Francis

        Ruffley, David

        May, Mrs Theresa

        Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

        Merron, Gillian

        Michael, rh Alun

        Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

        Milburn, rh Alan

        Salmond, Alex

        Miliband, David

        Salter, Martin

        Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

        Sarwar, Mohammad

        Savidge, Malcolm

        Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

        Sawford, Phil

        Moffatt, Laura

        Sayeed, Jonathan

        Mole, Chris

        Sedgemore, Brian

        Moonie, Dr. Lewis

        Selous, Andrew

        Morgan, Julie

        Shaw, Jonathan

        Morley, Elliot

        Sheerman, Barry

        Morris, rh Estelle

        Sheridan, Jim

        Moss, Malcolm

        Simmonds, Mark

        Mountford, Kali

        Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

        Mudie, George

        Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

        Mullin, Chris

        Singh, Marsha

        Munn, Ms Meg

        Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

        Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

        Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

        Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

        Smith, John (Glamorgan)

        Murrison, Dr. Andrew

        Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

        Naysmith, Dr. Doug

        Soley, Clive

        Norman, Archie

        Spicer, Sir Michael

        Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

        Spring, Richard

        O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

        Stanley, rh Sir John

        O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

        Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

        Olner, Bill

        Steinberg, Gerry

        Organ, Diana

        Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

        Osborne, George (Tatton)

        Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

        Stoate, Dr. Howard

        Ottaway, Richard

        Streeter, Gary

        Owen, Albert

        Stringer, Graham

        Page, Richard

        Stuart, Ms Gisela

        Paice, James

        Sutcliffe, Gerry

        Palmer, Dr. Nick

        Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

        Paterson, Owen

        Syms, Robert

        Picking, Anne

        Tami, Mark (Alyn)

        Pickles, Eric

        Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

        Pickthall, Colin

        Taylor, Ian (Esher)

        Pike, Peter (Burnley)

        Taylor, John (Solihull)

        995

        Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

        Wiggin, Bill

        Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

        Willetts, David

        Tipping, Paddy

        Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

        Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

        Williams, Betty (Conwy)

        Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

        Wills, Michael

        Tredinnick, David

        Wilshire, David

        Truswell, Paul

        Winnick, David

        Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

        Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

        Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

        Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

        Turner, Neil (Wigan)

        Twigg, Derek (Halton)

        Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

        Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

        Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

        Wishart, Pete

        Tyrie, Andrew

        Wood, Mike (Batley)

        Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

        Woolas, Phil

        Walley, Ms Joan

        Worthington, Tony

        Wareing, Robert N.

        Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

        Waterson, Nigel

        Watkinson, Angela

        Wright, David (Telford)

        Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

        Wright, Tony (Cannock)

        Weir, Michael

        Wyatt, Derek

        White, Brian

        Whitehead, Dr. Alan

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        Wicks, Malcolm

        Ms Bridget Prentice and

        Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

        Margaret Moran

        NOES

        Allan, Richard

        Llwyd, Elfyn

        Baker, Norman

        Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

        Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

        Breed, Colin

        Moore, Michael

        Burnett, John

        Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

        Burstow, Paul

        Öpik, Lembit

        Cable, Dr. Vincent

        Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

        Calton, Mrs Patsy

        Chidgey, David

        Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

        Cotter, Brian

        Rendel, David

        Davey, Edward (Kingston)

        Russell, Bob (Colchester)

        Doughty, Sue

        Sanders, Adrian

        Foster, Don (Bath)

        Thomas Simon (Ceredigion)

        George, Andrew (St. Ives)

        Thurso, John

        Gidley, Sandra

        Tonge, Dr. Jenny

        Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

        Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

        Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

        Webb, Steve (Northavon)

        Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

        Harvey, Nick

        Williams, Roger (Brecon)

        Heath, David

        Willis, Phil

        Holmes, Paul

        Younger-Ross, Richard

        Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

        Keetch, Paul

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Kirkwood, Sir Archy

        Mr. Andrew Stunell and

        Laws, David (Yeovil)

        Mrs. Annette L. Brooke

        Question accordingly agreed to.
        Bill read the Third time, and passed.

      Iraq (British Forces)
      7.53 pm
      The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I regret that I have to make a statement about two serious incidents involving British forces that took place in Iraq today.
      One incident occurred at about 7.30 this morning UK time, 10.30 local time. It involved members of the 1st Battalion the Parachute Regiment, who were conducting a routine patrol in the town of al Majarr al Kabir, about 25 kilometres south of the town of al Amarah, in the province of al Maysan. The two vehicles in which they were travelling were attacked with rocket-propelled grenades, heavy machine guns and rifle fire from a large number of Iraqi gunmen. British troops returned fire and called for assistance from other UK forces.
      A quick reaction force—including Scimitar vehicles, additional troops and a Chinook CH-47 helicopter—was dispatched to the scene to provide assistance. It also came under fire. A total of eight British personnel sustained injuries, one on the ground and seven in the helicopter. The casualties were taken initially to 202 field hospital, south-west of Basra. Two of them have since been transferred to a United States field hospital in Kuwait to receive specialist treatment for very serious injuries. The other six are being treated in 202 field hospital.
      Separately, the bodies of six British personnel, who appear to have been killed in another incident, were recovered from al Majarr al Kabir at about midday UK time. Those personnel were members of the Royal Military Police and had been engaged in training the local Iraqi police. Initial information suggests that they may have been involved in an incident at the police station in al Majarr al Kabir. I regret that at this stage, I am unable to provide any further details. British commanders are obviously investigating the situation as a matter of urgency.
      We are in the process of informing the next of kin of all those who have been killed or injured. I know that the House will want to join me in sending our condolences to these families. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Our thoughts are with them at this dreadful time.
      We are investigating whether there is any connection between the two incidents. British commanders in theatre are assessing the situation and have been in contact with local leaders. It would not be right to speculate further at this stage. I would certainly caution against reaching any wider conclusions about the overall security situation in southern Iraq, particularly in the United Kingdom's area of responsibility. Coalition forces have worked hard to secure Iraq in the aftermath of decisive combat operations. They will not be deflected from their efforts by the enemies of peace.
      Mr. Bernard Jenkin: The House will be grateful for the trouble that the Secretary of State has taken to keep us informed. There is very little that anyone can add at this stage to the statement that he has made. This is clearly a tragedy for those involved, and the whole House will join the Secretary of State in expressing our deepest sympathies for those who were

      997
      bereaved through, or injured in, the attacks. I can assure him that we agree that the next of kin must be the immediate priority. As he also said, it is too early to tell whether this signals a general worsening of the security situation in Iraq or is part of a pattern. In due course, the following questions will be asked. Were the attacks co-ordinated, and if so which organisation was behind them? Are we dealing with remnants of the regime, or were the attacks co-ordinated from outside Iraq?
      We have the best-trained and best-equipped troops to deal with threats such as this. This is a setback for them, but one that they will take in their stride. They will not be deflected from their mission to bring peace and security to the Iraqi people, and nor should we. All that I ask of the Secretary of State is that he give them all that they need to conduct operations as safely as possible, because that is no less than our armed forces so richly deserve.
      Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his observations, and particularly for his thoughts on the families, who will be suffering severely this evening. I know that the whole House will join him in the observations that he has made.
      Mr. Paul Keetch: May I, too, begin by thanking the Secretary of State for coming to the House so quickly? He kept us fully informed during the conflict, and he is right to come here this evening. May I also echo the tributes that have been paid to our armed forces, and pass on condolences from the Liberal Democrat Benches to the families and comrades of those who have lost their lives, and to the regiments? We also wish a full recovery to all those who have been injured. Our thoughts are with them and their families.
      These events show above all that we can never take the work of our armed forces for granted. The job that they are doing in Iraq is difficult and dangerous, and it is far from over. They continue to perform their task with great courage. Our thoughts are with them tonight.
      Mr. Tam Dalyell: In these awful and tragic circumstances, is not part of the unpalatable truth that, whether we like it or not, the British forces, like the Americans, are perceived as less of a liberating force and more of an occupying army? In the circumstances, should we not make an urgent approach to the United Nations?
      Mr. Hoon: Clearly, there has been a UN resolution in recent times, and it is important that we identify precisely who was responsible for the attacks before reaching such conclusions.
      Annabelle Ewing: May I add my condolences and those of my Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru colleagues? Our thoughts are also with the families of the soldiers killed and injured in Iraq today. I urge the Secretary of State to do all he can to ensure that the families receive all possible support. As the Member for Perth, where Blackwatch has its regimental headquarters, I also urge him to do all he can to ensure that the necessary level of protection is afforded to our soldiers on the ground in Iraq.
      Mr. Hoon: I can certainly give those assurances.
      Mr. John Lyons: Just two weeks ago, my colleagues and I were in the Basra-
      998
      Umm Qasr area and we clearly saw that British troops were playing a sterling role in trying to work with, and give every assistance to, the local community. My concern is that this horrific incident should not lead to any reversal of policy. It is the correct policy and it should be continued.
      Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Several hon. Members have told me of their shock, having visited southern Iraq and having seen the security situation on the ground improving steadily, at the appalling incidents that have now taken place. That is why it is so important to understand precisely what has happened.
      Mr. Nigel Dodds: May I, on behalf of my hon. Friends, also extend condolences to the families of all those who have been injured and killed in the tragic incidents in Iraq today? We in Northern Ireland are, tragically, all too familiar with this type of incident and we wish the injured well in their recovery. What is the position in respect of contact with local leaders on the ground in southern Iraq and what level of co-operation are British forces on the ground receiving?
      Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his observations. As far as local leaders are concerned, we have enjoyed an extremely good relationship across southern Iraq. Indeed, the information about the six deaths at the police station came from local people.
      Mr. Gwyn Prosser: The men of the 1st Battalion the Parachute Regiment are based in my Dover constituency. They were due to start coming home next week. Can my right hon. Friend say whether these incidents have changed those arrangements, and what practical arrangements are in hand to allow families and friends of people still serving overseas to make direct contact with the Ministry?
      Mr. Hoon: I am not aware of any plans to change the arrangements for the return, though the overall security position obviously has to be kept under review in the light of these dreadful incidents. I can certainly reassure all the families whose loved ones are serving in Iraq that every effort is being made for their welfare.
      Richard Younger-Ross: Like the hon. Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Lyons), I also visited Basra two weeks ago. People should realise that the work that our troops are doing on the ground is excellent. Local people greeted us with great friendliness. To all of us on that visit, this tragic news is particularly bitter. I hope that the Secretary of State will ensure that our forces continue to do the good work that they are doing now.
      Mrs. Alice Mahon: May I join others in expressing my deep sympathy to the relatives of the dead? I have mixed feelings tonight. A young relative of mine just returned home from Basra today, so I feel awful about what has happened. I repeat what was said by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell): is it not time to call in the United Nations to help? We daily see American soldiers killed and other incidents for which we all feel horror. Is it not time that

      999
      the whole world came together to do something about security and really help Iraq? If we are serious about helping the Iraqi people, we should secure the involvement of the United Nations. It is clear that there is hostility towards the coalition.
      Mr. Hoon: I repeat that there is a United Nations resolution, under which forces are already in Iraq with the authority provided by it. Indeed, we continue to discuss with other nations the contributions that they will make to rebuilding Iraq.
      Mr. Roy Beggs: May I extend the condolences of my party to the families of those who have lost loved ones in Iraq, and our good wishes for the recovery of those who have been injured? It is particularly poignant, given that we have just hosted Iraqi members of the special Olympics team in my home town and constituency. We want to pay tribute to the Prime Minister and all Departments that helped facilitate that visit. I hope and trust that God will be with our troops in Iraq as they seek to serve the people of Iraq and restore democracy and permanent peace.
      Jeremy Corbyn: In the light of today's tragic events, will the Secretary of State reflect further on the contributions of my hon. Friends the Members for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) and for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell)? We are talking about a desire for a United Nations force in Iraq that can assist in developing representative and accountable government there. Clearly, as time goes on, the British and American forces will increasingly be seen as an army of occupation rather than an army of liberation. Does the Secretary of State not think that the UN is best equipped to fulfil that role?
      Mr. Hoon: I do not accept that description of the coalition forces, but I will certainly reflect further on what all hon. Members have had to say.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I am sure that the whole House is grateful to the Secretary of State for making that early report and statement.

      LICENSING BILL [LORDS] (PROGRAMME) (NO. 3)
      Motion made and Question put,
      That the following provisions shall apply to the Licensing Bill [Lords] for the purpose of supplementing the Orders of 24th March 2003 and 16th June 2003.

      LICENSING BILL [LORDS] (PROGRAMME) (NO. 3)

        Consideration of Lords Message
        1. Proceedings on consideration of the Lords Message shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.
        2. Those proceedings shall be taken in the following order, namely, the Lords Amendment in lieu of Commons Amendment No. 62, the Lords Reasons for disagreeing to Commons Amendments Nos. 6, 15, 16, 20 and 21 and the Lords Amendment in lieu of words left out of the Bill by Commons Amendment No. 50.

        Subsequent stages
        3. Any further message from the Lords may be considered forthwith without any Question put.
        4. Proceedings on any further Message from the Lords shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after their commencement.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
        The House divided: Ayes 274. Noes 158.

        Division No. 253]

        [8:06 pm

        AYES

        Ainger, Nick

        Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

        Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

        David, Wayne

        Alexander, Douglas

        Davidson, Ian

        Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

        Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

        Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

        Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

        Atherton, Ms Candy

        Dawson, Hilton

        Bailey, Adrian

        Dean, Mrs Janet

        Baird, Vera

        Denham, rh John

        Barnes, Harry

        Dhanda, Parmjit

        Battle, John

        Dobson, rh Frank

        Beard, Nigel

        Donohoe, Brian H.

        Begg, Miss Anne

        Doran, Frank

        Benn, Hilary

        Drew, David (Stroud)

        Bennett, Andrew

        Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

        Best, Harold

        Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

        Blackman, Liz

        Edwards, Huw

        Blears, Ms Hazel

        Efford, Clive

        Borrow, David

        Ellman, Mrs Louise

        Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

        Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

        Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

        Farrelly, Paul

        Bradshaw, Ben

        Fisher, Mark

        Brennan, Kevin

        Fitzpatrick, Jim

        Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

        Filzsimons, Mrs Lorna

        Bryant, Chris

        Follett, Barbara

        Burgon, Colin

        Foster, rh Derek

        Burnham, Andy

        Foster, Michael (Worcester)

        Byers, rh Stephen

        Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

        Caborn, rh Richard

        Cairns, David

        Francis, Dr. Hywel

        Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

        Gibson, Dr. Ian

        Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

        Gilroy, Linda

        Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

        Godsiff, Roger

        Caplin, Ivor

        Goggins, Paul

        Caton, Martin

        Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

        Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

        Grogan, John

        Challen, Colin

        Hain, rh Peter

        Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

        Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

        Chaytor, David

        Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

        Clapham, Michael

        Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

        Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

        Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

        Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

        Hanson, David

        Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

        Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

        Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

        Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

        Healey, John

        Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

        Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

        Clelland, David

        Hendrick, Mark

        Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

        Hepburn, Stephen

        Coaker, Vernon

        Heppell, John

        Coffey, Ms Ann

        Hesford, Stephen

        Coleman, Iain

        Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

        Colman, Tony

        Hinchliffe, David

        Connarty, Michael

        Hodge, Margaret

        Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

        Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

        Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

        Hoon, rh Geoffrey

        Corbyn, Jeremy

        Hope, Phil (Corby)

        Corston, Jean

        Hopkins, Kelvin

        Cranston, Ross

        Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

        Cruddas, Jon

        Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

        Howells, Dr. Kim

        Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

        Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

        Cummings, John

        Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

        Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

        Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

        Humble, Mrs Joan

        Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

        Hume, John (Foyle)

        Dalyell, Tam

        Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

        Darling, rh Alistair

        Iddon, Dr. Brian

        1001

        Illsley, Eric

        Olner, Bill

        Irranca-Davies, Huw

        Organ, Diana

        Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

        Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

        Owen, Albert

        Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

        Palmer, Dr. Nick

        Jamieson, David

        Picking, Anne

        Jenkins, Brian

        Pickthall, Colin

        Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

        pike, Peter (Burnley)

        Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

        Plaskitt, James

        Pollard, Kerry

        Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

        Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

        Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

        Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

        Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

        Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

        Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

        Primarolo, rh Dawn

        Jowell, rh Tessa

        Prosser, Gwyn

        Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

        Purchase, Ken

        Kaufman, rh Gerald

        Purnell, James

        Keeble, Ms Sally

        Rammell, Bill

        Keen, Alan (Feltham)

        Rapson Syd (Portsmouth N)

        Kemp, Fraser

        Raynsford, rh Nick

        Khabra, Piara S.

        Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

        Kidney, David

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

        Kilfoyle, Peter

        King, Andy (Rugby)

        Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniwsland)

        King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

        Rooney, Terry

        Ladyman Dr.Stephen

        Ruane, Chris

        Lammy, David

        Ruddock, Joan

        Lepper, David

        Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

        Leslie, Christopher

        Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

        Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

        Ryan, Joan Enfield N)

        Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

        Salter, Martin

        Love, Andrew

        Sawford, Phil

        Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

        Shaw, Jonathan

        Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

        Sheerman, Barry

        Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

        Sheridan, Jim

        McAvoy, Thomas

        Singh, Marsha

        McCabe Stephen

        Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

        McCartney, rh Ian

        Soley, Clive

        MacDonald, Calum

        Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

        McDonnell, John

        Steinberg, Gerry

        MacDougall, John

        Stevenson, George

        McIsaac, Shona

        Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

        McKechin, Ann

        Mackinlay, Andrew

        Stoate, Dr. Howard

        McNulty, Tony

        Stringer, Graham

        MacShane, Denis

        Stuart, Ms Gisela

        Mactaggart, Fiona

        Sutcliffe, Gerry

        McWalter, Tony

        Tami, Mark (Alyn)

        McWilliam, John

        Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

        Mahon, Mrs Alice

        Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

        Mallaber, Judy

        Tipping, Paddy

        Mandelson, rh Peter

        Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

        Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

        Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

        Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

        Truswell, Paul

        Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

        Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

        Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

        Turner, Neil (Wigan)

        Marshall-Andrews, Robert

        Twigg, Derek (Halton)

        Martlew, Eric

        Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

        Michael, rh Alun

        Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

        Milburn, rh Alan

        Walley, Ms Joan

        Miliband, David

        Wareing, Robert N.

        Moffatt, Laura

        Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

        Mole, Chris

        White, Brian

        Moonie, Dr. Lewis

        Whitehead, Dr. Alan

        Morgan, Julie

        Wicks, Malcolm

        Morley, Elliot

        Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

        Mudie, George

        Williams, Betty (Conwy)

        Mullin, Chris

        Wills, Michael

        Munn, Ms Meg

        Winnick, David

        Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

        Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

        Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

        Naysmith, Dr. Doug

        Wood, Mike (Batley)

        Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

        Woolas, Phil

        O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

        Worthington, Tony

        1002

        Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        Wright, David (Telford)

        Ms Bridget Prentice and

        Wyatt, Derek

        Margaret Moran

        NOES

        Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

        Holmes, Paul

        Allan, Richard

        Horam, John (Orpington)

        Amess, David

        Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

        Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

        Jack, rh Michael

        Bacon, Richard

        Jenkin, Bernard

        Baron, John (Billericay)

        Keetch, Paul

        Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

        Kirkbride, Miss Julie

        Bellingham, Henry

        Kirkwood, Sir Archy

        Blunt, Crispin

        Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

        Boswell, Tim

        Laing, Mrs Eleanor

        Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

        Lait, Mrs Jacqui

        Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

        Laws, David (Yeovil)

        Letwin, rh Oliver

        Brady, Graham

        Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

        Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

        Liddell-Grainger, lan

        Brazier, Julian

        Lidington, David

        Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

        Lilley, rh Peter

        Browning, Mrs Angela

        Llwyd, Elfyn

        Burnett, John

        Loughton, Tim

        Burns, Simon

        Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

        Burstow, Paul

        McIntosh, Miss Anne

        Burt, Alistair

        Mackay, rh Andrew

        Butterfill, John

        Maclean, rh David

        Cable, Dr. Vincent

        McLoughlin, Patrick

        Calton, Mrs Patsy

        Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

        Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

        Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

        Maude, rh Francis

        Cash, William

        May, Mrs Theresa

        Chidgey, David

        Mercer, Patrick

        Chope, Christopher

        Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

        Clappison, James

        Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

        Moore, Michael

        Collins, Tim

        Moss, Malcolm

        Conway, Derek

        Murrison, Dr. Andrew

        Cotter, Brian

        Norman, Archie

        Davey, Edward (Kingston)

        Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

        Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

        O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

        Öpik, Lembit

        Dodds, Nigel

        Osborne, George (Tatton)

        Doughty, Sue

        Page, Richard

        Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

        Paice, James

        Evans, Nigel

        Paterson, Owen

        Ewing, Annabelle

        Pickles, Eric

        Fabricant, Michael

        Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

        Fallon, Michael

        Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

        Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

        Randall, John

        Flight, Howard

        Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

        Flook, Adrian

        Rendel, David

        Forth, rh Eric

        Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

        Foster, Don (Bath)

        Francois, Mark

        Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

        Garnier, Edward

        Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

        Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

        Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

        Gidley, Sandra

        Roe, Mrs Marion

        Goodman, Paul

        Rosindell, Andrew

        Grayling, Chris

        Ruffley, David

        Green, Damian (Ashford)

        Russell, Bob (Colchester)

        Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

        Sanders, Adrian

        Greenway, John

        Sayeed, Jonathan

        Grieve, Dominic

        Selous, Andrew

        Hague, rh William

        Simmonds, Mark

        Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

        Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

        Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

        Harvey, Nick

        Spicer, Sir Michael

        Hayes, John (S Holland)

        Spring, Richard

        Heath, David

        Stanley, rh Sir John

        Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

        Streeter, Gary

        Hendry, Charles

        Stunell, Andrew

        Hermon, Lady

        Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

        1003

        Syms, Robert

        Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

        Taylor, Ian (Esher)

        Wiggin, Bill

        Taylor, John (Solihull)

        Willetts, David

        Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

        Williams Hywel (Caernarfon)

        Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

        Williams Roger (Brecon)

        Thurso, John

        Willis, Phi1

        Tonge, Dr. Jenny

        Wilshire, David

        Tredinnick, David

        Winterton, Ann(Congleton)

        Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

        Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

        Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

        Wishart Pete

        Tyrie, Andrew

        Younger-Ross, Richard

        Waterson, Nigel

        Webb, Steve (Northavon)

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Weir, Michael

        Mr. Mark Hoban and

        Whittingdale, John

        Angela Watkinson

        Question accordingly agreed to.

        Licensing Bill [Lords]
        Lords amendments and reasons, considered.
        8.19 pm
        The Minister for Sport (Mr. Richard Caborn): I beg to move, That this House insists on its amendment No. 62 to which the Lords have disagreed, and disagrees with the amendment No. 62A proposed by the Lords in lieu thereof.
        In speaking on this issue, I will also speak on the proposed Government amendment (a) to the Bill in lieu of the proposed amendment by the Lords.
        What many people do not seem to realise is that the Licensing Bill is not an extension of the scope of entertainment licensing. Generally speaking, nothing that does not need a licence or other authorisation now will need one under the Bill. What the Bill does is make it much cheaper and easier to get a licence where one is needed.
        Peter Bottomley: Will the Minister give way?
        Mr. Caborn: No. I am just laying out the case. I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment.
        The Bill is a combination of safety law and licensing that keeps people safe at entertainment venues of any size. Taking away licensing would undermine fundamentally the ability to protect the public. So Parliament traditionally has taken the view that it is necessary for professionals such as health and safety officers and fire officers to advise licensing authorities on the adequacy of the arrangements in place at any venue.
        Lords amendment No. 62A would totally undermine the ability of the experts to assess public safety across a huge swathe of entertainment venues. For example, Westminster city council has written to the Department to point out that 62 per cent. of its entertainment venues would escape any kind of scrutiny at all under amendment No. 62A. In our view, that is completely unacceptable. It would take public safety out of the hands of the experts and put it in those of amateurs.
        Peter Bottomley: I thank the Minister for giving way, and I think that the House understands that many parts of the Bill are acceptable and worthwhile. The objections—from people outside, from the other place and from some people in this House—have to do with whether the Government are railroading through proposals when an adjustment would be much more acceptable.
        For example, at the end of the previous Commons debate the Minister of State, Department for Transport, the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells), who was then responsible for the Bill, answered in the affirmative when I asked whether I needed a licence for a church event in my own house, at which there would be music rather than poetry reading. That is the sort of event that has got caught up unnecessarily. I am speaking not so much for myself as for people like me, and that is the problem: many more people will be caught by the Bill than the Minister has acknowledged.
        Mr. Caborn: I shall clear up some of those points as I go, and explain why the amendment has been moved.

        1005
        However, serious matters of public safety are involved, and I should have thought that they were crucial to this House.
        As a slight aside, amendment No. 62A's sole concession to public nuisance is that any event to which the exemption applies should finish by 11.30 pm. Unfortunately, it does nothing to prevent an event starting at 11.31 pm and continuing for 23 hours arid 59 minutes. Therefore, examination of the amendment shows that it does not achieve what it sets out to achieve. I urge this House to throw out Lords amendment No. 62A, which we believe to be dangerous and defective; otherwise, the House will have to be held to account if there is a serious accident at a venue exempted from the proposed regulations, and if a death occurs as a result.
        However, I fully recognise that there is a problem that needs to be addressed. Even with all the safeguards in the Bill—and with the additional work that we are doing in the statutory guidance, with the help of performers' representatives, to limit the potential for licensing authorities to act disproportionately—many venue operators, particularly pub owners, are fearful that if they tick the box and apply for permission to put on entertainment, the licensing authority will hit them for thousands of pounds worth of unnecessary conditions.
        So we have proposed a concessionary amendment, in lieu of Lords amendment No. 62A, which places further restrictions on the ability of licensing authorities to apply conditions on premises licences that authorise the provision of certain forms of regulated entertainment.
        I shall now list those premises to which the effect of the new clause is restricted. First, the new clause applies where a premises licence or club premises certificate is in force authorising the supply of alcohol for consumption on the premises and the performance of live music or of dance or the provision of entertainment facilities for making music or dancing or entertainment of a similar description. Secondly, it applies to premises that are used primarily for the supply of alcohol for consumption on the premises. It therefore covers mainly pubs and bars. Thirdly, it applies to premises where the regulated entertainment that I mentioned earlier is provided when the premises are open for the supply of alcohol for consumption there. Fourthly, it applies to premises where the premises licence or certificate stipulates a permitted capacity limit for the premises of no more than 200 people.
        What that means in practice is that, although conditions may be imposed on a premises licence or certificate in relation to any of the licensing objectives, they will only have effect in two circumstances—where they relate to the prevention of crime and disorder or to public safety, or where they have been stated to apply or have been imposed following a review of a premises licence, and relate to any of the licensing objectives.
        Mr. David Heath: I have just been mulling over what the Minister said about the great fire risk incurred when music is being played. Would the risk be any less if the same people were watching a widescreen television, or simply drinking on the premises?
        Mr. Caborn: No. We are talking about a licence that covers any equipment that is used. The Musicians
        1006
        Union has objected to the proposals to some extent, but it advises its members to use greater care than that set out in statute when dealing with electrical goods, and so on. What we are trying to do is ensure that premises are safe, and the Bill will give comfort to the general public on that score. As I said, accepting the Lords amendment would mean that 62 per cent. of premises in the Westminster area would be exempt from the conditions ion the Bill—conditions that we think are basic to public safety.
        Mr. John Whittingdale: Will the Minister give way?
        Mr. Caborn: I will in a moment.
        In effect, this is a 'one strike and you're out" policy. Operators can benefit from the disapplication of conditions—except for reasons of crime and disorder, or public safety—provided that they do not abuse the privilege, and end up being reviewed. So if an operator allows the music and dancing that he or she is putting on to give rise to issues of public nuisance, the licence or certificate can be reviewed and conditions necessary for the promotion of the relevant licensing objectives attached.
        Andrew Bennett: What my hon. Friend the Minister is saying appears to be very helpful to those involved in traditional folk events, which take place in small pubs. However, when he talks about 200 people, does he mean that they are all inside a pub, or must the capacity of beer gardens also be taken into account? That capacity is often quite difficult to estimate.
        Mr. Caborn: No. I think that the common-sense approach would be that the proposal applies to the space inside the premises, which is where the people whom we are trying to protect are to be found. My understanding is that the licence applies to the premises, but if a correction is necessary I shall let my hon. Friend know.
        Mr. Malcolm Moss: Just before the Minister sat down he used the term "public nuisance", but the only conditions in Government amendment (a) that I can see are the prevention of crime and disorder and public safety. It says nothing about public nuisance.
        Mr. Caborn: If that is the case, we shall revisit the matter. As far as I am concerned, however, public nuisance is covered by the amendment to which I am speaking at the moment.
        I hope that there is a certain amount of support in the House for the four proposals that the Government are making. The Opposition often tell us to get shot of red tape, and with this Bill we are bringing six licensing provisions together in one proposal. The basic principles are set out very clearly in the Bill. They are the prevention of crime and disorder, public safety, the prevention of public nuisance and the protection of children from harm. I should have thought that those aims would have gained the Opposition's support, as they consistently ask the Government to get rid of red tape. The amendment that we are discussing, and the Bill as a whole, will do just that.
        8.30 pm
        Mr. Moss rose—
        Mr. Caborn: I shall not give way again.
        I realise that some people will be deeply concerned about restricting the application of conditions imposed on a licence or certificate, other than those related to crime, disorder or public safety, until a review takes place. The other licensing objectives are important. I share those concerns. Live music and dancing can, and do, give rise to public nuisance, and there are also issues about protecting children from harm.
        However, the Government have taken the view that by limiting the concession to premises that primarily supply alcohol and are subject to a condition that the permitted capacity is 200, coupled with the review procedure, the disapplication of conditions other than those relating to public safety and the prevention of crime and disorder can be justified.
        I shall say a little about why we have not acted to disapply conditions relating to public safety and the prevention of crime and disorder. On crime and disorder, the police have made strong representations to us that the legislation must deal with three issues in particular: guns, drugs and bands that incite crowds to violence. The first two matters speak for themselves. The third relates to certain bands that espouse extreme right-wing values and whose performances often directly encourage violence, fuelled by the worst examples of racist hatred, among the audience. That is a major problem in some cities and the police, rightly, need powers to take preventive action.
        On public safety. the case is straightforward: people will be injured or die if we ignore it. Although nuisance can be a blight on people's lives, it is unlikely to result in the death of those affected, and if an operator acts inconsiderately towards his neighbours and causes a nuisance, the premises licence or club premises certificate can be reviewed.
        That concession will give responsible authorities the ability to act to address public safety and the prevention of crime and disorder up front, while, for practical purposes, the other licensing objectives will be in abeyance pending a review. I repeat that the Government feel strongly about these issues. We want to retain proper protections for local residents against irresponsible operators whose activities give rise to issues of public nuisance and we want to ensure the protection of children from harm. At the same time, the provisions will act to provide a further focus for licensing authorities, in imposing only necessary and proportionate conditions.
        Mr. Whittingdale: The Minister puts great stress on public safety and, of course, we share his concern that nothing must be done that would endanger the public. However, will he explain the point already raised by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath)? Why do the same considerations not apply in the case of a pub where 200 people may be watching a World cup final on a large screen? Surely, the same public safety issues would arise, yet they are not covered by the Bill.
        Mr. Caborn: We do not take that judgment. Our judgment is laid out in the amendment. It is as simple as
        1008
        that. We believe that our amendment is proportionate and necessary to address the Lords amendment and to answer some of the concerns raised in debate in the other place, as well as reflecting representations that we have received from local authorities and the police.
        Hon. Members do not need to take only my word for that. The Association of Chief Police Officers has written to the Department to protest in strong terms against the dangerous Lords amendment. We have made that letter available to Opposition Front-Bench Members, and I hope that they will have the sense to take full note of its contents. ACPO said that the Bill already strikes a balance that it is happy to support. It notes that exempting premises from licensing altogether would deprive the police of the opportunity to take measures to deal with problems that may arise through nuisance, crime and disorder. Finally, it indicates that the correct approach is one that tailors conditions to the level of risk. The combination of the Bill, as drafted, the statutory guidance and the amendment that I am asking the House to accept achieves that risk-based approach and I ask the House to support the motion.
        Mr. Moss: I welcome the Minister on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box after responsibility for the Bill was added to his burgeoning portfolio. It is tempting to point out that he is the third Minister in as many weeks to take responsibility for what is turning out to be rather a poisoned chalice. I hope that, unlike his colleague in the other place, he has not had his letterheads printed prematurely. I wonder how much it cost for the former Minister to change his letterheads. As we have not yet seen the current Minister's letterheads, we do not know whether he has taken that road.
        Commiserations as well as congratulations would seem to be in order. The only consolation for the Minister is that he will not have to undergo much more of this particular torture, because the Government will either lose the Bill in a few weeks' time, or they will see the eminent sense of their lordships' amendments and come to a sensible compromise before their lordships take another vote, which will, I understand, be a week on Thursday.
        The amendment deals with the vexed question of small events exemptions for music and dance. It would be salutary to remind ourselves of the story so far. When the Bill was in the other place, their lordships added a small premises exemption that the Government threw out in Committee in this place. The Government rejected a similar amendment on Report in this place. Their lordships duly reinstated their provision last week and the Government are only now making their first attempt to find a solution to the problem.
        I stress that in all our debates on the Bill, this is the Government's first effort to address the real and continuing concerns of a huge swathe of people who rely on music, not only functionally for employment, but also culturally. The Government's proposal goes a little way, but it does not satisfy the requirements of those people. The Government have only themselves to blame. They seem to have set their face against reason and logic.
        We need to remind ourselves of the background to the proposals. For many decades, live music has been provided, without entertainment licences, at tens of

        1009
        thousands of private events and in thousands of private members' clubs, without causing significant problems for the police. For more than 40 years, the two-in-a-bar exemption has applied in more than 110,000 liquor-licensed premises. To the best of my knowledge and that of those involved in both licensing and entertainment, all those who spoke in Committee and all those who have lobbied the Opposition on the Bill, the police have never made an issue of the two-in-a-bar rule. The police made no representations on the rule during the recent consultation period.
        We face the prospect of none in a bar, and the interests of live music, folk clubs and their ilk, including folk dancing, will be not be further forwarded by the amendment. What would the Bill mean without an exemption? Without a licence under the Bill, there can be a jukebox in a bar; big screens and a public address system could be set up anywhere to broadcast music, sport or anything else, but putting on a performance by a solo pianist or a string quartet would be a criminal offence. Even providing a piano for the public to make their own entertainment would be an offence, unless licensed. That is the consequence of a whole new category of offences introduced for the provision of unlicensed "entertainment facilities". The provisions are direct discrimination against live music; they are obviously nonsense and obviously unjust.
        Of course, the Minister has made great play of the fact that the Government are attempting to restore proportionality, but the only way to do that is to introduce a de minimis exemption. True to form, the main theme of the Minister's argument has been to try to play up the public safety arguments against the small-events exemption. Again, the exemption for big-screen entertainment and stand-up comedy exposes the weakness of that argument.
        Opposition Members have twice questioned the Minister on what he perceives to he the difference with a crowd of people—not just 200, but sometimes 500 or more—packed to the gunwales in a pub, cheering on a football match, but the Minister had no answer to that direct question. How is it all right to provide those facilities without an entertainment licence, but even unamplified live performance cannot be adequately regulated unless licensed?
        On previous occasions, the Government have talked about the terrible fires, caused by fireworks, that occurred in a music club in the United States, but that is a complete red herring. It should be pointed out that a pyrotechnics licence was required in those circumstances in the USA, but it appears that the club did not possess one.
        A pub landlord could throw a party in his garden, with fire-eaters, knife throwers, a bouncy castle, cables trailing to an air compressor, and a powerful CD player, and that would be exempt from entertainment licensing under the Bill. However, adding a featured, unamplified performance by a solo guitarist would be a criminal offence unless licensed.
        The Government have prayed in aid the views of the police, not just in the debate this evening, but on many previous occasions. Why have they circulated the letter from Assistant Chief Constable Taylor of Greater Manchester police headquarters, who is responsible for licensing issues, to the Liberal Democrat Members who
        1010
        have contributed to the debates in Committee and myself? Their lordships first voted for the small-premises or events exemption back in early March—14 weeks ago—so why did not the police bother to air their concerns publicly before now? Why, at the eleventh hour, do we receive that letter, bringing down the wrath of Gideon on everyone, when the police have had ample opportunity to raise their concerns at an earlier stage?
        The Minister has alluded to some of that letter's content, and I should like to go through it because he used it as the basis on which to drive forward the public safety issue. Speaking of Lords amendment No. 62, the assistant chief constable says:
        "It allows live music events to take place at premises which are not licensed and in respect of which, therefore, there has been no opportunity to ensure that the necessary measures are in place to protect the public in accordance with all the licensing objectives."
        So the police are saying that, unless somewhere is licensed, we cannot ensure that all the licensing objectives are adhered to. Let us remind ourselves of what those objectives are, since the Minister has alluded to them. As listed in clause 5(2)(a) to (d), they are: preventing crime and disorder; public safety; amenity and environment for residents, which covers things like noise and disturbance; and, finally, protecting children from harm.
        The letter from the police goes on to say:
        "As the premises may not be licensed, the police would be deprived of the opportunity to take measures to deal with problems which may arise through nuisance, crime and disorder."
        However, the police say nothing about public safety or protecting children from harm, so the Minister and the Department seem to have been rather choosy in selecting what to include in their amendment and to have ignored quite a lot of what the police have recommended.
        8.45 pm
        Finally, the police go on to talk about live music and the heavy metal bands that presumably frequent the north-west. I am afraid that we do not seem to have them in East Anglia.
        Mr. Whittingdale: We do.
        Mr. Moss: Fine, but I have not come across them.
        The police are worried about the differences between heavy metal music and the normal sort of pianist or quartet music. They say:
        "These differences extend not only to the level of noise emanating from the venue (which could be a venue outdoors) but also"—
        this is how they link such things with crime and disorder—
        "to the type of clientele attending the event".
        ACPO's argument for rejecting the exemption, as it would apply to unlicensed premises, is essentially that, because heavy metal bands exist, the provision in such places of all other live music, even an unamplified solo performance, must be a criminal offence unless licensed. That is indeed taking the proverbial sledgehammer to crack a nut and it is not sufficient justification for throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

        1011
        Where is the Government's flexibility? Where is any sign of lateral thinking? For example, it would be perfectly possible to introduce a notification requirement where electrical amplification is used for live performance in places that were not already licensed for alcohol or other regulated entertainments. If that notification were to the local authority and the police, as with temporary event notices, that should allow for intervention using existing health and safety and noise nuisance legislation. Of course, the police would be in the know—they would know that such things were going on—and could intervene. In such circumstances, performances without notification could be made an offence. Perhaps police and local authority powers of closure could be extended to those events, similar to the powers proposed in the Anti-social Behaviour Bill, which we have just discussed, and existing police closure powers for licensed premises.
        Of course, the hours issue is another red herring, repeated by the Minister this evening. The police are worried, for some reason, that the amendment would allow people to close their premises at 11.30 and reopen them at 11.31. Well, frankly, if the Government were positive in seeking a solution to that problem, a simple change to the wording could be made so that the premises could open for a given number of hours between 10 in the morning and 11.30 at night on the same day. Although the Minister has made a big issue of that, as did his colleague in the other place, the problem could be easily overcome.
        The Minister has prayed in aid the letter from the assistant chief constable, but the police seem to be catching the Government's habit of selective amnesia. Why, in ACPO's recent letter, does it not remind the Government of its written representations to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, warning that televised sporting events were quite frequently a source of disorder and should, in its view, be made licensable entertainments? Why has no notice of that been taken either in the letter from the police or by the Minister from Dispatch Box this evening?
        Let me now turn to Government amendment (a), entitled "dancing and live music in pubs etc." Perhaps we should appear grateful that dancing has been linked with live music, but we believe that the whole proposal is seriously flawed. Frankly, it is irrational. First, it can apply only if the pub already has a licence for musical entertainment and, as I said a moment ago, that includes dance in the new meaning. The biggest single point about the need for a de minimis exemption is to avoid having to get such a licence in the first place. Having to get one and then disapplying certain conditions in certain cases is not a solution.
        Secondly, the restrictions lifted might include those most likely to be deemed necessary: if any, those on noise levels and amplification. The amendment, in subsections (3) and (4), deals only with restrictions applying when there are considerations of public safety and crime and disorder. In my intervention on the Minister, I mentioned subsection (3)(a) and (b). ACPO, however, wanted to tighten up on crime and disorder and noise but not on public safety. Noise is not to feature, however, as a ground for imposing conditions. Where is the consistency? The Minister let it slip in his
        1012
        speech that public nuisance was going to be used as a condition, but it is not in the amendment. Therefore, as he said, he will have to go away and think about that again. Time, however, is running out.
        Thirdly, if there is no permitted capacity either under the soon-to-be-repealed Fire Precautions Act 1971 or otherwise, the provisions cannot apply no matter how small the premises or the respective part used or to be used. It seems illogical to prevent premises with a permitted capacity of, say, 500 under the 1971 Act from putting on a musical entertainment for, say, only 200 people in the whole or just part of those premises. Why, after all this time, are the Government turning for help to the Fire Precautions Act 1971? This is the first time it has been mentioned in more than 60 hours of debate on the Bill in this House alone. One gets the impression that the Government are thrashing around in desperation to get themselves, if at all possible, off a substantial hook of their own making.
        Although the margin of the vote in the other place last Thursday was the narrowest that it has been, I assure the Minister that considerably more support is available for new amendments that tighten up Lords amendment 62A to address the concerns about amplification, noise and even numbers. A great deal of good will exists, particularly on the Cross Benches, to find a compromise that still exempts live music at small events from the over-regulated burden of entertainment licensing. The Minister is new to his task, but if he and the Government want the Bill to be passed, certainly before the requirement to address the legal basis of licensing in the Welsh Assembly kicks in—in the autumn, I believe— further adjustment and compromise will be necessary.
        One is compelled to ask whether the proposal in this amendment is a mere stalking horse, cynically designed to he unacceptable, to facilitate a spurious argument that the Government tried to meet the needs driving the small premises exemption. Reading between the lines, what the Government seem to be bending over backwards not to state explicitly is that the existing legislation of various Acts of Parliament may be sufficient—I have alluded to the Fire Precautions Act 1971—but that they do not trust certain people to implement those properly.
        Mr. Frank Dobson: I want to make it clear from the word "go" that I do not support the Lords amendment. Unlike Conservative Front-Bench Members, I support the police and I certainly speak up for local residents in my area. I was therefore hoping that the Government amendment would be an improvement on the Lords amendment, which it is. I regret to say, however, that it, in itself, is faulty. What may be a small event to us at a distance—an event where loud music comes out of small premises holding 200 people—is not small if one lives next door to it or across the road from it. We need to bear that in mind.
        My principal concern about the Government amendment, which, as I said, is a vast improvement on the Lords amendment, is that, of the four licensing objectives in the overall Bill—prevention of crime and disorder, public safety, prevention of public nuisance and protection of children from harm—it exempts live music venues from the requirement not to be a public nuisance and the requirement to protect children from

        1013
        harm. I had assumed at first that that was just a slip, but it appears, from what my right hon. Friend the Minister said, to be deliberate. That seems strange because, of all the characteristics of loud music, being a public nuisance is the first one that springs to mind when we consider the licensing objectives. It is more likely to be a public nuisance than a threat to public safety, a threat to crime and disorder or a threat to harm children. I cannot understand why all four of the licensing objectives should not apply to such premises in the same way as they will apply to all other premises, especially given that loud music is likely to be a public nuisance above all else. I hope that when the Bill goes back to—or returns the House of Lords, we will be able to add public nuisance to the list of conditions that may be applied from the start.
        My right hon. Friend the Minister put forward the alternative. He suggested that people must experience a public nuisance, go through months of trouble from some premises, go to the bother of making protestations and get the licensing body to examine the situation before it goes through a long procedure to drag the licensee before it. That could last for months on end while local residents' lives are made a misery. Given that most premises will be properly run and will not cause a nuisance, introducing a requirement that they must not be a public nuisance would not place a great burden on the bulk of them. If the requirement placed a burden on the wrong 'uns, that is exactly what we would want.
        Nick Harvey: In some ways I am rather saddened that we are still debating this vexed issue even at such a late stage, although I am not especially surprised. It is the aspect of the entire Bill that has caused the most controversy and anxiety in the country. As the weeks and months have gone by, it is remarkable that the Government have shown no serious intent to address the issue. It has been raised on a wide front throughout the country, and the result of the Government's reluctance to sit down and examine the issue seriously is that we are still debating it at this late stage.
        The problem goes back to the fundamental question of why it is necessary to license public entertainment at all. I listened to the Minister's predictions of doom, disaster and calamities for public safety if we do not have entertainment licensing for all events, however modest their scale. I cast my mind north of the border to Scotland where there is no public entertainment licensing, yet I see no signs of the death, disaster, disease and pestilence that the Minister anticipates if we do not operate the regime in England. The Government have raised a completely false spectre.
        Mr. Kevan Jones: The hon. Gentleman says that there is no control on public entertainment in Scotland, but a licensing authority must put a condition on what covers public entertainment.
        Nick Harvey: I say most emphatically that I did not claim that there was no control on public entertainment in Scotland. The point that has been made consistently during the passage of the Bill is that there are plenty of
        1014
        other controls on public entertainment, so there is no need to add the licensing regime that the Bill will implement. It is precisely because there are so many other ways to control public entertainments and public safety at them that the provision is so unnecessary.
        If it were true that the Lords amendment were deficient or offensive to the Government, I would have expected Ministers to propose sensible modifications to it. However, the Government amendment does no such thing. The Government have missed the point of the Lords amendment—either deliberately or by mischance. The points that were rehearsed this evening were the same as those made in Committee and on Report.
        There is a problem regarding the treatment of a venue if a wide-screen television shows either a football match to a rowdy crowd, which might include supporters of both teams—depending on the match and the location of the premises—or a pop concert that chucks out music at a high level of decibels. The anomaly between how those two events will be treated remains an essential problem that has not been addressed.
        9 pm
        The Minister read extracts from the letter circulated by the Association of Chief Police Officers. It is worth turning our attention to one or two matters raised in it. One concern that the police articulated is that the exemption as framed by the House of Lords would apply to all premises anywhere, not just to those that already have a liquor licence or premises licence of some description. Surely it would be more constructive for the Government to respond to the Lords amendment by modifying it so that the small events exemption applies only to premises that already have a premises licence. The police would have the power to order a closure and the licence holder would fear that the licence might not be renewed if there were recurrent instances of entertainments that were occurring as a result of the exemption and were causing a nuisance in the vicinity.
        As the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) said, if anyone is seriously arguing that the wording of the Lords amendment is deficient because events that started at 11.31 pm are not covered, it is not beyond the wit of parliamentary draftsmen to remedy that and draft a modified amendment. I agree with the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) that Government amendment (a) is bizarre. Quite apart from the fact that it does not remedy the problem and is not a concession, it is also flawed in the way that he suggested. One would expect the premises licence to cover all four of the Bill's objectives. The idea that we suddenly drop a couple of them in the case of small entertainments is bizarre.
        However, the key problem with the Government amendment is, as the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire said, that it applies only if someone has an entertainment licence. The entire point of the exemption proposed by the other place is to get around the need to have an entertainment licence, which is, in any case, unnecessary for the reasons that I touched on and as we know from the experience in Scotland. The

        1015
        Government have not made a concession. They have not begun to address the purpose of the House of Lords amendment.
        Mr. Heath: What did my hon. Friend make of the Minister's bold assertion at the beginning of his speech that nothing would need a licence that did not need one before? Is it not transparently obvious that two people singing in a bar did not need a licence before and now they will?
        Nick Harvey: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the point on which I wished to finish. The Minister's assertion that nothing will require a licence under the Bill that did not require one previously is self-evidently nonsense. A host of things will require licensing that did not before, not least the sort of events that the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley) mentioned. There was a useful de minimis exemption in previous legislation. I understand why in this day and age it is necessary to find something better and less arbitrary than the two-in-a-bar rule. The Government will have to spend the next few days scratching around to find such a de minimis exemption or we will get into an extended stand-off with the other place.
        Peter Bottomley: To be fair to the Minister, he said that not many things would be caught by licensing that were not caught before. The Official Report will show whether or not I am right, but it is not my job to support the Minister.
        I want to return to what his hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) said at column 180 of the Official Report on 16 June. He said that if people are charged an admission fee for an event and if drinks are paid for, a temporary entertainment licence is needed. That will affect not just Church or political party events but any event organised by a voluntary organisation where people, out of the goodness of their heart, say, "Come in and use our house, premises or barn for an event to raise funds for a good cause."
        Temporary entertainment licences are not the precise subject of the amendment, so I shall briefly remind the Minister that we understand the arguments about strip bars and all the other arguments used in the other place and, occasionally, the Commons.
        The Government should not rely either on throwing out the Lords amendment or on any technical defect to carry on without thinking. I hope, whatever the result of tonight's vote, that the Minister will ask his officials to assist the Government in helping the other place and the Commons to get this right. Modification is needed.
        There may be too many Labour Members in the House tonight for the Opposition to win the vote, but that is no justification for doing things wrong, when it is relatively easy to do them right.
        Mr. Mark Field: I endorse the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley), as there is a great danger that we are rushing the provision through.
        1016
        I wish to address the grave concerns raised by Conservative Members. From a constituency perspective, I am particularly worried about the amendment to exempt premises serving fewer than 200 people from measures dealing with public nuisance and the need to preserve children from harm whenever the premises are open. I share the grave concerns of the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) about the Lords amendment. However, I accept the case for that amendment presented by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss)— at least it had the advantage of ensuring that events finished by 11.30 pm instead of going on until any time, as is now being proposed.
        The Minister was disingenuous when discussing Westminster city council's objections to the Lords amendment, as 62 per cent. of premises accommodate fewer than 200 people. Westminster city council is even more concerned about the proposals that we are discussing tonight, as are the many local residents and residents' associations with which I, like the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, have worked closely. The majority of licensed premises in central London accommodate fewer than 200 people, and the noise nuisance consequences of any entertainment, which could be music or dancing but under the sweeping nature of the amendment could also include the nude entertainment that is part and parcel, albeit a small part, of local entertainment in Soho, would be exempt. We must look at what will happen in practice. All that residents can do is suffer public nuisance, then call for a review. Only then can they ask a licensing authority to disregard the exemption.
        It is bizarre, to put it mildly, that the amendment is being rushed through. There is less than 24 hours to consider it, and there was probably not much more time for the hapless officials in the Department to prepare it. I hope that, even at this late hour, the Minister will think twice, otherwise I fear that the matter will ping-pong between the Commons and another place.
        I spoke to Westminster city council as a matter of urgency late this afternoon, and its reaction was not enthusiastic. It feels that the provision is complicated and reactionary, and would put even more pressure on it. The same would apply to the London borough of Camden and other central London authorities, which would not have the necessary support or resources. We discussed the transitional arrangements on Report, and a vote took place, which we could not win. I know that the matter will be discussed again in another place. I hope that the Minister will think twice about this amendment, which I suspect was rushed through and which promises to be extremely damaging.
        Mr. Caborn: I shall respond to hon. Members' legitimate concerns. From the debate, it sounded as though no exemptions had been made, but that is not so. During the passage of the Bill, exemptions have been made for places of public religious worship, church halls, village halls, community centres, schools and sixth form colleges. Further exemptions have been made for incidental light music, performers have been decriminalised, and statutory guidance is to be developed.

        1017
        I can tell the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss), who spoke for the official Opposition, that the reason the police have not objected before is that there was no need for them to object. They fully supported what the Government were doing on the matter. As we tried to meet some of the concerns expressed in the House and in another place, we moved away from our original position. It was only then that the police made representations. It would be foolhardy not to reflect on what they are saying. The hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey), who spoke for the Liberal party, may shake his head, but we believe it is right to take account of what the police say.
        Local authorities also supported the Government's proposals, but because we moved away from our original position, they too have made representations, and it is legitimate for them to do so. In framing our amendment in lieu of the Lords amendment, we have tried to reflect their concerns and some of the concerns expressed in the House and the other place. That is why the police are now raising serious issues about drugs, their association with light music, the gun culture and the extreme violence promoted by some bands. I hope that hon. Members support what the police say and what we have tried to embody in the amendment. If they do not, they should get up and say so to the House.
        May I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett) that if a premises is licensed, that applies to the whole of the premises, so the gardens would be covered by the licence?
        I did not initially understand the remarks of the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley) to the Minister of State, Department for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) who dealt with the Bill previously. I gather that the hon. Gentleman asked—he will correct me if I am wrong—whether he would need a licence if he had a party to raise money and wanted to sell alcohol. Anybody selling alcohol needs a licence if they are doing that for profit. That is the law as it stands, and the Bill will not change it. If the hon. Gentleman wants to undertake major fundraising for the Conservative party and wants to sell liquor at a profit to raise money, he needs a licence.
        The hon. Gentleman said that he wrote a letter. I will have it sought out and try to answer it in writing. If I have understood his point correctly, he would need a licence, even though the profit was for the Conservative party.
        Peter Bottomley: At column 180, in the example to which I referred, I used both the party and the Church. I used the party first, to try to draw out of Ministers an answer that they have declined to give over all the months of the Bill's progress.
        The Church example catches the point as well. If the Church is caught for the supply of alcohol if people pay for their tickets, and they are making the entertainment themselves, that is an exemption which the Minister ought to ask his officials to draft for him. I make that plea to him. Between now and the Bill's return to the other place, will he please read the letter and the earlier exchange, if necessary give me a call, and try to find a solution?
        Mr. Caborn: If there is a genuine misunderstanding, we shall try to clear it up. I was present for the close of
        1018
        the previous debate, and as I understood the hon. Gentleman, he wanted to hold a fundraising activity that would involve the selling of alcohol to raise money for the Conservative party. If that is not the case, I shall consider the matter further. I shall try to be helpful to him, but that is the position as I understand it.
        As to the great television debate on which we now all seem to be hooked, there is no doubt that there are some tremendous professionals in the House, but no representation has been made by any professional suggesting that licences should be issued in respect of televisions in rooms in public places. If representations are made by the professionals, we will consider them, but that is the information that I have been given. If the hon. Member for North Devon has different information, I have no doubt that he we will let us know.
        Nick Harvey rose—
        Mr. Moss rose—
        9.15 pm
        Mr. Caborn: I shall not give way, as I want to answer questions asked by other hon. Members.
        I know that my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) has genuine concerns about the nuisance that he believes blights his constituency. I fully understand that. We are trying to be proportionate in the amendment. We are covering two areas, although there are four major areas in the Bill. We believe that the question of nuisance can be taken up in terms of the review. All that he would have to do is raise his concern with the licensing authorities in respect of such a review, which can be carried out by a statutory organisation or an individual.
        Where we have concerns about public safety, we believe that action should be taken from the outset and that the approach should be proactive, rather than reactive. Nuisance will not kill people, whereas we believe that what we are dealing with could be a danger to public life. On the questions of noise and protection of children, we believe that the issues can be taken up and are adequately dealt with by the Bill. Indeed, they can be raised either by the statutory bodies or by individuals.
        I think that I have covered most of the points that have been raised by hon. Members. We believe that the House should support the amendment.
        Question put, That this House insists on its amendment No. 62 to which the Lords have disagreed, and disagrees with the amendment No. 62A proposed by the Lords in lieu thereof.
        The House divided: Ayes 268, Noes 159.

        Division No. 254]

        [9:16 pm

        AYES

        Ainger, Nick

        Battle, John

        Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

        Beard, Nigel

        Alexander, Douglas

        Beckett, rh Margaret

        Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

        Begg, Miss Anne

        Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

        Benn, Hilary

        Atherton, Ms Candy

        Bennett, Andrew

        Bailey, Adrian

        Betts, Clive

        Baird, Vera

        Blackman, Liz

        Barnes, Harry

        Blears, Ms Hazel

        1019

        Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

        Francis, Dr. Hywel

        Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

        George, rh Bruce (Walsall S)

        Bradshaw, Ben

        Gibson, Dr. Ian

        Brennan, Kevin

        Gilroy, Linda

        Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

        Goggins, Paul

        Bryant, Chris

        Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

        Buck, Ms Karen

        Grogan, John

        Burgon, Colin

        Hain, rh Peter

        Burnham, Andy

        Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

        Byers, rh Stephen

        Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

        Caborn, rh Richard

        Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

        Cairns, David

        Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

        Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

        Hanson, David

        Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

        Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

        Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

        Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

        Caplin, Ivor

        Caton, Martin

        Healey, John

        Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

        Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

        Challen, Colin

        Hendrick, Mark

        Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

        Hepburn, Stephen

        Chaytor, David

        Heppell, John

        Clapham, Michael

        Hesford, Stephen

        Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

        Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

        Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

        Hinchliffe, David

        Hodge, Margaret

        Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

        Hoon, rh Geoffrey

        Hope, Phil (Corby)

        Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

        Hopkins, Kelvin

        Clelland, David

        Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

        Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

        Coaker, Vernon

        Howells, Dr. Kim

        Coffey, Ms Ann

        Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

        Coleman, Iain

        Humble, Mrs Joan

        Colman, Tony

        Hume, John (Foyle)

        Connarty, Michael

        Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

        Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

        Iddon, Dr. Brian

        Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

        Illsley, Eric

        Corston, Jean

        Irranca-Davies, Huw

        Cousins, Jim

        Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

        Cranston, Ross

        Jenkins, Brian

        Cruddas, Jon

        Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

        Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

        Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

        Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

        Cummings, John

        Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

        Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

        Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

        Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

        Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

        Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

        Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

        Dalyell, Tam

        Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

        Darling, rh Alistair

        Jowell, rh Tessa

        Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

        Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

        David, Wayne

        Kaufman, rh Gerald

        Davidson, lan

        Keeble, Ms Sally

        Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

        Keen, Alan (Feltham)

        Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

        Kemp, Fraser

        Dawson, Hilton

        Khabra, Piara S.

        Dean, Mrs Janet

        Kidney, David

        Denham, rh John

        Kilfoyle, Peter

        Dhanda, Parmjit

        King, Andy (Rugby)

        Donohoe, Brian H.

        King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

        Doran, Frank

        Drew, David (Stroud)

        Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

        Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

        Lammy, David

        Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

        Lepper, David

        Edwards, Huw

        Leslie, Christopher

        Efford, Clive

        Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

        Ellman, Mrs Louise

        Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

        Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

        Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

        Farrelly, Paul

        Love, Andrew

        Fisher, Mark

        Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

        Fitzpatrick, Jim

        Luke, Iain (Dundee E)

        Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

        Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

        Follett, Barbara

        McAvoy, Thomas

        Foster, rh Derek

        McCabe, Stephen

        Foster, Michael (Worcester)

        McCartney, rh Ian

        Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

        MacDonald, Calum

        McDonnell, John

        1020

        MacDougall, John

        Rooney, Terry

        McIsaac, Shona

        Ruane, Chris

        McKechin, Ann

        Ruddock, Joan

        Mackinlay, Andrew

        Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

        McNulty, Tony

        MacShane, Denis

        Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

        McWalter, Tony

        Salter, Martin

        McWilliam, John

        Savidge, Malcolm

        Mallaber, Judy

        Sawford, Phil

        Mandelson, rh Peter

        Shaw, Jonathan

        Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

        Sheerman, Barry

        Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

        Sheridan, Jim

        Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

        Singh, Marsha

        Martlew, Eric

        Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

        Michael, rh Alun

        Soley, Clive

        Milburn, rh Alan

        Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

        Miliband, David

        Steinberg, Gerry

        Moffatt, Laura

        Stevenson, George

        Mole, Chris

        Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

        Moonie, Dr. Lewis

        Moran, Margaret

        Stoate, Dr. Howard

        Morgan, Julie

        Stringer, Graham

        Morley, Elliot

        Stuart, Ms Gisela

        Morris, rh Estelle

        Tami, Mark (Alyn)

        Mudie, George

        Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

        Mullin, Chris

        Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

        Munn, Ms Meg

        Tipping, Paddy

        Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

        Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

        Naysmith, Dr. Doug

        Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

        Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

        Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

        O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

        Turner, Neil (Wigan)

        Olner, Bill

        Twigg, Derek (Halton)

        Organ, Diana

        Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

        Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

        Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

        Owen, Albert

        Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

        Palmer, Dr. Nick

        Wareing, Robert N.

        Picking, Anne

        Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

        Pickthall, Colin

        White, Brian

        Pike, Peter (Burnley)

        Whitehead, Dr. Alan

        Plaskitt, James

        Wicks, Malcolm

        Pollard, Kerry

        Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

        Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

        Williams, Betty (Conwy)

        Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

        Wills, Michael

        Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

        Winnick, David

        Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

        Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

        Primarolo, rh Dawn

        Wood, Mike (Batley)

        Prosser, Gwyn

        Woolas, Phil

        Purchase, Ken

        Worthington, Tony

        Purnell, James

        Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

        Rammell, Bill

        Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

        Wright, David (Telford)

        Raynsford, rh Nick

        Wright, Tony (Cannock)

        Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

        Wyatt, Derek

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

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

        Mr. Jim Murphy and

        Paul Clark

        NOES

        Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

        Brazier, Julian

        Allan, Richard

        Breed, Colin

        Amess, David

        Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

        Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

        Browning, Mrs Angela

        Bacon, Richard

        Burnett, John

        Baker, Norman

        Burns, Simon

        Barker, Gregory

        Burstow, Paul

        Baron, John (Billericay)

        Burt, Alistair

        Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

        Butterfill, John

        Blunt, Crispin

        Cable, Dr. Vincent

        Boswell, Tim

        Calton, Mrs Patsy

        Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

        Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

        Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

        Campbell, rh Menzies (NE Fife)

        Cash, William

        Brady, Graham

        Chidgey, David

        Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

        Chope, Christopher

        1021

        Clappison, James

        Moss, Malcolm

        Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

        Murrison, Dr. Andrew

        Collins, Tim

        Norman, Archie

        Conway, Derek

        Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

        Cotter, Brian

        O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

        Davey, Edward (Kingston)

        Öpik, Lembit

        Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

        Osborne, George (Tatton)

        Page, Richard

        Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

        Paice, James

        Paterson, Owen

        Dodds, Nigel

        Pickles, Eric

        Doughty, Sue

        Portillo, rh Michael

        Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

        Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

        Evans, Nigel

        Fabricant, Michael

        Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

        Fallon, Michael

        Randall, John

        Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

        Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

        Rendel, David

        Flight, Howard

        Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

        Flook, Adrian

        Forth, rh Eric

        Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

        Foster, Don (Bath)

        Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

        Garnier, Edward

        Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

        George, Andrew (St. Ives)

        Roe, Mrs Marion

        Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

        Rosindell, Andrew

        Gidley, Sandra

        Ruffley, David

        Goodman, Paul

        Russell, Bob (Colchester)

        Grayling, Chris

        Sanders, Adrian

        Green, Damian (Ashford)

        Sayeed, Jonathan

        Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

        Selous, Andrew

        Greenway, John

        Simmonds, Mark

        Grieve, Dominic

        Spelman, Mrs Caroline

        Gummer, rh John

        Spicer, Sir Michael

        Hague, rh William

        Spring, Richard

        Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

        Stanley, rh Sir John

        Steen, Anthony

        Harvey, Nick

        Streeter, Gary

        Hayes, John (S Holland)

        Stunell, Andrew

        Heath, David

        Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

        Hendry, Charles

        Syms, Robert

        Holmes, Paul

        Taylor, Ian (Esher)

        Horam, John (Orpington)

        Taylor, John (Solihull)

        Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

        Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

        Jack, rh Michael

        Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

        Jenkin, Bernard

        Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

        Keetch, Paul

        Thurso, John

        Kirkbride, Miss Julie

        Tonge, Dr. Jenny

        Kirkwood, Sir Archy

        Tredinnick, David

        Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

        Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

        Laing, Mrs Eleanor

        Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

        Lait, Mrs Jacqui

        Tyrie, Andrew

        Laws, David (Yeovil)

        Waterson, Nigel

        Leigh, Edward

        Watkinson, Angela

        Letwin, rh Oliver

        Webb, Steve (Northavon)

        Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

        Whittingdale, John

        Liddell-Grainger, lan

        Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

        Lidington, David

        Wiggin, Bill

        Lilley, rh Peter

        Willetts, David

        Llwyd, Elfyn

        Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

        Loughton, Tim

        Williams, Roger (Brecon)

        Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

        Willis, Phil

        McIntosh, Miss Anne

        Wilshire, David

        Mackay, rh Andrew

        Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

        Maclean, rh David

        Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

        McLoughlin, Patrick

        Maude, rh Francis

        Younger-Ross, Richard

        May, Mrs Theresa

        Mercer, Patrick

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

        Mr. Mark Hoban and

        Mr. Mark Francois

        Question accordingly agreed to.
        It being more than one hour after the commencement of proceedings, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put forthwith the questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to Order [this day].
        Amendment (a) in lieu of Lords amendment No. 62A agreed to.
        Resolved, That this House does not insist on its amendment No. 21 to which the Lords have disagreed.—[Mr. Ainger.]
        Amendments (a) to (h) in lieu of Commons amendment No. 21 agreed to.
        Resolved, That this House does not insist on its amendments Nos. 6, 15, 16 and 20, to which the Lords have disagreed and agrees with Lords amendment No. 50A in lieu of Commons amendment No. 50—[Mr. Ainger.]

      PETITION

        Community Pharmacies
        9.32 pm
        Mr. Paul Truswell: I wish to present a petition signed by more than 3,500 of my constituents and others regarding their concerns about the recommendations of the Office of Fair Trading on community pharmacies. I pay particular tribute to Mr. Tom Liptrot, a community pharmacist in my constituency, who has been assiduous in promoting this petition.
        The petition states:
        The implementation of the Office of Fair Trading recommendation to remove restrictions on entry to the community pharmacy market could create instability in the community pharmacy sector, put a blight on the investment plans of pharmacies, frustrate the plans of primary care trusts, and thereby reduce access to community-based services, none of which would be consistent with the Department of Health's policy document "Pharmacy in the Future—Implementing the NHS Plan".
        The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons call upon the Government to reject this recommendation.
        To lie upon the Table.

      Construction Industry (Tax Treatment)
      Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Joan Ryan.]
      9.33 pm
      Mr. Alan Hurst: I am pleased to have the opportunity to bring this important matter before the House. Although I have no direct experience of the building industry, I come from a family who for generations worked in that industry. My father was a lifelong member of the Amalgamated Society of Woodworkers, a predecessor union to UCATT. One of my earliest memories is of attending the union's Christmas party for children at the Oakleigh Cooperative hall, probably in 1950. My next memory was of my father building a council estate in Didcot in 1951. He was a general foreman on a construction site for Laings, and I spent a week down there with him as he patrolled the site giving directions to the people working there, all of whom I understood to be the employees of the contractor.
      That was a long time ago. This Government and previous Governments have wrestled with the problems over the past 40 or 50 years. Reform of the Inland Revenue construction industry scheme was announced in the Chancellor's pre-Budget statement in November 2002, together with the publication of the consultation paper entitled "The Inland Revenue and the Construction Industry—Working together for a New Scheme". That may be said to be a first. If its aims can be achieved, there will be considerable progress.
      The revised scheme, which is to be implemented in 2005, sets three broad aims: to reduce the regulatory burden on the industry; to improve compliance, particularly with regard to tax obligations; and to assist businesses properly to assess the proper status of their workers. Reducing paperwork is linked to the introduction of computerisation. At present, "employers" issue slips or vouchers supposedly every time a payment is made to the "self-employed man or woman", and that is then sent off for tax reconciliation at the end of the year. One of the major problems has been that employees often do not receive the vouchers, or they receive them en bloc, as a result of which they have considerable difficulties in assessing the tax calculation at the end of the period.
      The proposal is that the Inland Revenue computer system will simplify that enormously. Provided that it works—and that is what used to be called a conditional clause—it should make some considerable progress but the Revenue over 30 years has been trying to overcome tax evasion in the construction industry without any real and lasting success. My fear is that, unless we are careful with the revised scheme, there will be further disappointment and public confidence will wane further.
      The consequences of failure are not just a loss to the Inland Revenue, which has been estimated by Dr. Harvey, who was engaged by UCATT to assess the position, to be about £1.2 billion to £2 billion per year, but a loss to every taxpayer in the country. I recently tabled a parliamentary question to my right hon. Friend the Paymaster General, and I believe that there are no clear figures or estimates from the Government as to what the loss is, although I suspect that they will
      1024
      concede that there is a loss. However, false self-employment has further consequences. It goes to the heart of the industry. It fragments the work force and denies workers in the industry employment rights. The man who is said to be self-employed but in reality is not loses all the protections that the employed man would have, and risks losing social security benefits if he fails to pay his national insurance contributions.
      On the face of it, there is a short-term gain for contractors in employing the self-employed. That comes about because they escape liability for employers national insurance contributions. Nor are they obliged to offer many of the rights and protections that they would have to offer to those who are on the payroll. The whole system is essentially false. It is a fantasy world. One can go to building sites, look at the men employed and they will all appear to be doing the same job, working there week after week. They will all appear to be on the same terms but some will be employed and some will be purporting to be self-employed. The working man is in a difficult position because if he complains, he may risk losing his job. It is not unknown for contractors to insist on self-employment rather than to offer any choice.
      There may have been some progress over the past two or three years but even today, a union official in my division, Ron McKay, told me of a building site close by. He believes that 100 per cent. of those working there—it is quite a large site—are purporting to be self-employed.
      I suppose that the problem really started back in the 1960s. Before then, the majority of workers were on the pay-as-you-earn scheme. They were engaged perhaps by a subcontractor, but predominantly by a main contractor, and they were paid weekly. At the end of the week, the employer sent to the Exchequer the tax deducted and the national insurance contributions. The workmen were protected by the labour laws then appertaining and by the benefits flowing from the social security system.
      At some point in the 1960s, something known as "the lump" became almost a public scandal. I recollect television programmes on the effect of the lump—in other words, of payment in cash to virtually uncertified workers. The Revenue had virtually no idea whatsoever what the position was, how many people were employed and what tax should be paid. And of course, the workers themselves had no protection whatsoever against unscrupulous employers.
      The then Government sought to get hold of the situation through the Finance Act 1970. A scheme was introduced involving issuing a 714 certificate in respect of those who were believed to be genuinely self-employed and genuinely independent contractors. They were paid gross by the main contractor, and had to account for tax in the normal way, as any self-employed person does. If they could not do so, they were issued an SC60 contract, tax was deducted at source and the matter was sorted out—or not—at a later date. Of course, the employer still did not pay any employers national insurance contributions.
      It would seem that for many years, Governments did not have a clue as to how many people were employed and how many were self-employed. I recently tabled a parliamentary question on this matter, but figures for the self-employed in the construction industry could be

      1025
      given only from 1994. It seems that there are no figures for before that time, which is perhaps because there was a different system, or because the information was just unknown.
      Governments have recognised the problems, and in that respect I give credit to the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), who in the mid-1990s sought to enforce the existing system. In essence, enforcement turns on proper definitions, so that a judgment can be made as to whether someone is properly self-employed or their status is in fact a charade. When such enforcement and compliance was taking place, a remarkable rise took place in the number of those listed as employed, rather than as self-employed.
      The new construction industry scheme—the CIS4 scheme—involved the issuing of some 800,000 cards in a little more than a year. That is an enormous number of cards to justify the "ticket to ride" to self-employment. The problem appears to have returned to a considerable extent in the past few years. Indeed, in the mid-1990s about half of those in the construction industry were listed as self-employed.
      On the face of it, the new scheme was an attempt to regularise the position, but it appears not to have worked. Other Members have dealt with this issue in recent times. My hon. Friend the Member for Chatham and Aylesford (Jonathan Shaw) has spoken of the effect of bogus self-employment, and my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham), who is in his place, initiated a debate on this subject and on the work of Dr. Harvey in particular. Dr. Harvey's main contention was that mass false self-employment has damaged the construction industry. He argued that it has contributed to skills shortages, whereby major employers no longer invest in training. That and low capital investment are the classic ingredients for low productivity.
      The Government have recognised the problems. As I said, a further scheme will be implemented in 2005. In 1998, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister produced a report entitled "Rethinking Construction", which contained plenty of worthy ideas. Ultimately, however, unless we get to task with the issue of employment and self-employment, all the other matters will fall by the wayside.
      One of those matters is health and safety. The building industry has acquired an appalling record over the years. Indeed, last year, there were 85 fatalities and 4,862 serious injuries. It is right to say that the Health and Safety Executive has taken dynamic action to bring that down by on-the-spot inspections of sites and by seeking a greater degree of compliance. The industry itself has set targets to reduce the fatalities and injuries by a considerable degree over the next five years.
      The new scheme outlined by the Government is based on verification. It switches the burden from the subcontractor to the main contractor. If that is the case, it is a very positive move forward, which means that the buck will stop with the main contractor, who has many incentives to act in a responsible way. He will have a further responsibility to rein in the subcontractors who are not always so responsible.
      John Cryer: Would my hon. Friend argue that the proposed scheme will, down the line,
      1026
      eventually lead to more direct employment instead of the culture of sub-contracting that we see at the moment?
      Mr. Hurst: I am grateful for that intervention, and that would certainly be my hope. Narrowing down the number of players, as it were, who are obliged to verify is bound to make the industry wonder whether it would be better off employing people directly, rather than going through a charade of self-employment through subcontractors or directly self-employing workmen. However, unless that is followed through by inspection, it will fail. If there is no rigorous check and verification of returns, there will be no incentive for people to get it right.
      Successive Governments have lightly jousted with the problems of the construction industry for more than 30 years. During that time, workers have lost employment rights, sick pay, redundancy pay and pensions. Training has fallen away and apprenticeships have disappeared. Safety at work remains a mortal problem and the Exchequer has lost billions of pounds over that period. Now is the time to resolve the dilemma created by false self-employment. We need a test to determine self-employment that is open, clear, logical and obvious. At the risk of offending modernisers among Government Law Officers, I shall use a legal maxim that would resolve the conundrum: res ipsa loquitor—let the facts speak for themselves—or, to use a more current term, "get real".
      9.48 pm
      The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) on securing the debate. He raises some important issues and I very much welcome this opportunity to explain to my hon. Friends and the House how the Government intend to carry forward this important work.
      The construction industry is a vital sector of the British economy and central to the Government's commitment to public services. It is an industry that can offer great opportunities for employment and training, and for businesses to succeed. More than 1.5 million people work within the construction sector at any one time and it is clear that, unless the industry can encourage people to work in construction, there will be insufficient labour to fulfil the contracts.
      Before I explain to the House the challenges that the Government clearly face, I want to outline the principles that we intend to follow. I am pleased to say that I am echoing what my hon. Friend touched on in his speech about the need to adhere to those principles.
      The challenge for the Government is how to ensure that we have a framework in place that gives the industry the flexibility that it needs to respond to the varying commercial pressures that it faces, and the demands placed upon it. We also have a duty to ensure that that flexibility does not come at the cost of employment rights, safety, training or, indeed, the appropriate level of taxation.
      Central to tackling the issues that my hon. Friend outlined in his speech is the issue of employment status, which is decided on the facts. It is for the workers and those for whom they work to agree the terms and

      1027
      conditions under which work will be done. If the agreed terms and conditions amount to employment, rights flow from that. The employer will automatically have certain responsibilities to the employee, including operating pay-as-you-earn to collect the right amount of tax at the right time, and deducting and accounting for national insurance class 1 contributions. They also include the provision of employment rights and benefits.
      If the agreed terms and conditions amount to self-employment, the worker will assume responsibilities for their own tax and national insurance contributions through the self-assessment scheme, and the worker will normally have to provide their own financial cushion to cover holiday or sickness periods. In construction, we have enabled the self-employed to comply with their tax and national insurance responsibilities through the construction industry scheme.
      My hon. Friend touched on Dr. Harvey's report, which was very interesting. Among other issues, my hon. Friend also touched on the amount of tax that Dr. Harvey identified as being at risk. While the Government do not agree with all of the facts that Dr. Harvey considered in order to reach that figure, we do not dispute that some tax and national insurance is lost. That feeds through into employment, training and safety in the workplace.
      Employment status in the UK, as in many other countries, is determined on a case law approach for tax, national insurance and employment rights. The case law approach provides flexibility, but we also recognise that it can mean that it is difficult for some to determine the employment status of their workers. As a Government, we have always recognised that in construction, as with any business sector, there are those who do not pay the right tax and national insurance because they have got their employment status wrong. The consequences of that are important as they affect the individual's employment rights and access to certain benefits, and may also mean a loss of tax to the Exchequer.
      There is a distinction, of course, between those who find it difficult to determine the employment status of their workers and those who make little or no attempt to get the status right. For most engagements, it is clear whether someone is working on an employed or a self-employed basis. But where there is doubt, the Inland Revenue provides extensive guidance and support to help to determine status. That is why the Revenue has a compliance regime to meet the challenge of those who do not meet their responsibilities.
      Despite that extensive support, there are still those who get employment status wrong. It would seem that the incidence of incorrectly determined status is higher in construction than in many other sectors. Therefore, I would also like to take this opportunity to tell the House about the work that the Revenue has done in the last couple of years. I have explained that an individual's employment status is determined using a case law approach. The Revenue has developed a computer-based tool to determine employment status. The tool asks a series of questions about the engagement and, after weighing the facts of the case, will provide guidance on the individual's employment status. The Revenue hopes to start making the software available to its staff later this year and to talk to industry about the
      1028
      possibility of making the tool available externally at some point in the future, perhaps via the internet. That would enable us to ensure that consistent advice is given on employment status, thus providing far greater potential to get it right in the first place. However, my hon. Friend is right to ask whether we are doing enough. Despite the help and guidance that we provide, and despite the threat of financial penalties, it is clear that some employers continue to perpetuate a culture where some workers are paying the wrong tax and the wrong national insurance contributions. That denies them access to the employment rights and benefits that they deserve. My officials meet regularly with representatives from construction and are told that the pressure for false self-employment comes from both contractors and the workers themselves. For instance, we are told that it is the only way that contracts can be won and then fulfilled, that contractors would be happy to tax on the right basis if all of their competitors did, and that the status is too confusing to get right.
      I shall deal with those points. I have already told the House of the extensive guidance that is available, and of the compliance regime for the industry. I have also mentioned the new computerised employment status tool that is being developed, which will support the guidance even further. However, as my hon. Friend noted, it is time that all contractors took the issue of employment status seriously. Following a period of consultation on the review of the construction industry scheme, we announced measures that will bring employment status to the forefront of contractors' minds. I put that in a delicate manner.
      A special tax deduction scheme for the construction industry has existed since 1972 to tackle the culture of a cash economy and tax evasion. The present construction industry scheme, known as CIS, was introduced by the Government in August 1999 to safeguard tax revenue previously lost through abuse of the last scheme.
      However, CIS is a paper-based system that requires all subcontractors in the construction industry to hold a registration card—the CIS4 card—or a gross payment certificate. The scheme requires vouchers to be completed for all payments made by contractors to subcontractors.
      Unfortunately, there is a myth in the industry that a CIS4 card is a certificate of self-employment. Rather as a growing child holds on to the idea of the tooth fairy, many like to believe the CIS4 legend—perhaps they feel that there is greater financial reward in perpetuating that myth. We are openly told on many occasions that contractors treat the CIS4 card as a certificate of self-employment, even though they know full well that it is not. The cards simply allow a worker to work on a self-employed basis, if that is their correct status.
      My hon. Friend touched on the large number of CIS4 cards in circulation. There can be many reasons for that. For instance, we believe that many cards are not used regularly. The cards are issued to individuals, partnerships or companies and they do not have an expiry date. They are not supposed to be proof that a person is definitely self-employed, nor do they convey that status. Some people may have the certificate, but only undertake work at the margins of construction. However, they need the card for that work.

      1029
      I turn now to the final point that my hon. Friend made. One of the main aims of the construction industry review is to help construction businesses to get the employment status of their workers right. The consultation paper therefore proposed a new employment status declaration. When the new scheme is introduced, contractors will have to declare that the subcontractors whom they are paying are correctly within the scheme and are not employees. That declaration will be policed—a point made by my hon. Friend—to ensure that it is not being made lightly and that it is being applied.
      To touch on other points that my hon. Friend made, the new system will go further and will enable us—the Inland Revenue, as the tax-collecting authority—to improve risk assessment and trend analysis to find noncompliance on employment status and to deal with it quickly.
      Where does that leave us? What will happen next? I hope that my hon. Friend will be encouraged to learn that we have no plans to change our approach. Determining employment status is the correct way to
      1030
      deal with the issue, although we continue to keep an open mind, as is shown by the initiatives that I have described. We continue to keep the matter under close review across Government to make sure that people are paying the right amount of tax and national insurance contributions and receiving the correct employment rights and training, and that they have access to benefits. All Departments will continue to work together. I can assure my hon. Friend that the Inland Revenue will not hesitate, and nor shall I, to encourage or enforce compliance as necessary.
      I assure my hon. Friends that we take employment status seriously and that we will not hesitate to make further changes, if necessary, in the construction industry or anywhere else. It is vitally important that people fulfil their responsibilities and that an industry that supports many people can make progress with training, safety and proper employment arrangements. Dealing with employment status presents us with an opportunity and I intend to see it through.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Adjourned accordingly at one minute past Ten o'clock.

Preamble
[MR. FRANK COOK in the Chair]

Football
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Kemp.]
9.30 am
Mr. Tony Clarke: A 9.30 am kick-off is a pleasant way to start a Tuesday morning. Even the best Sky schedulers could not have arranged such an early start.
I start by declaring an interest in Northampton Town football club. I realise that it is unusual to include Northampton Town football and interest in the same sentence but, on this occasion it is best that I do so. We are in the Chamber to talk about the financing of football. It is widely accepted and appreciated that there is a crisis in the game today, the extent of which has been widely discussed in the football family, the national press and the business world. It has even been suggested that we could lose up to half the league clubs that participate in leagues in the United Kingdom.
I hope that today's debate will focus on some of the problems faced by football clubs, especially in the Nationwide league, but I also want to spend much of the time available to us examining the negotiations on, and the debate surrounding, the sale of the television rights to the UK premiership, and the European Commission's insistence that the deal is anti-competitive.
I address the Chamber today as an elected director of the Northampton Town supporters trust. Northampton Town was the first football club to create a trust some 11 years ago. The trust movement has, more than anything else, acted as a bond, bringing football supporters together as a common football family. When we, as hon. Members, contribute to the debate, we speak not from the point of view of one football club—our own—but for the many. We accept that an injury to one football club is an injury to all, and that football clubs could go out of business and communities lose their access to them. None of us wants that to happen, but it might unless a concerted effort is made that includes intervention by the UK Government.
In 1992, the face of British football changed for ever. The premier league was born, and it has been an incredible boost to those clubs that have been sufficiently fortunate, good and skilful to be in it. However, the rest of the football league has experienced difficulties. Television rights are probably the most significant factor in explaining the impact on football and the reason why there is such a gap between the richest and the poorest in football in this country.
It is estimated that 20 clubs are in danger of going out of business. Every day, more clubs go into administration, and it becomes more and more difficult for them to see a way out because of spiralling debts. The position is so serious that, in a recent report, the accounting firm, Grant Thornton, stated:
192WH
"Based on the current scenario what we are likely at best to witness, is even more players being placed on the transfer market with many not being offered renewed terms … a major restructuring of the Football League with many clubs having to act radically in the short term … having to consider merging with a local rival, relocation, and … possible extinction".
Many people share that view, because everything that could be done to save clubs has already been done. Clubs have sold their grounds to property developers to ensure that they can repay accumulative debt. Clubs have long since dreamed of entering the transfer market, but they have had to try to get teams together on the basis of free transfers made in the close season.
I repeat that I am not here to plead poverty on behalf of Northampton Town. We are in an interesting position and one that we have not been in for many years. We are reasonably financially healthy. Credit for that must go to our new chairman, David Cardoso. He is a rare beast in football: a liked, respected and much loved chairman. He is popular with supporters of Northampton Town, and I have no problem in saying that he has the best interests of the game at heart. We are fortunate, because we are in a position of relative strength compared with the teams that we play against week in, week out.
I am a director and have visited grounds in the second and now the third division, so I get to talk to fellow directors about the state of the game. What strikes me is that many clubs exist week to week, deciding which cheque to send to which creditor and wondering whether they can pay the wages this week. That can result in a crazy scenario. Last year, Huddersfield went into administration at the request of its players, because they were not being paid. Wages are a huge issue. The spiralling cost of wages is a factor that needs to be taken into account when we consider how football has got itself into the state that it is in today.
An example of the wages problem is that even a second division club in the Nationwide league will have a wages bill of between £1.5 million and £2 million, yet those clubs play, in some instances, to gates as low as 4,000, 5,000 or 6,000. The turnover of those clubs floats around the figure of £2 million, but the players' wages swallow up an ever-increasing proportion of that turnover. If we take into account the other costs associated with running football, which include policing, stewarding, ground and pitch maintenance and the need for ever more complicated safety regulations for stadiums, we find that most clubs are in deficit and are continuing to lose money.
We see that problem even at the top end of the game. John Hartson was recently sold from Coventry to Celtic for £6.5 million, but that deal involved an additional £3 million in wages, which equated to about £30,000 a week. The total cost to Celtic should have been £9.5 million, but in fact it was £15 million, because Hartson's arrival broke the embargo in respect of players' contracts. In other words, as soon as he arrived, he broke Celtic's wage structure, leading to other players' agents making demands on behalf of their clients. That led to increases of £500 or £1,000 a week just to keep other players happy. That £6.5 million transfer ended up costing Celtic £15 million. Those are incredible figures that result from the salary of one player. It would be wrong of me to mention individual players at

193WH
Northampton Town, but last year certain players earned more than £2,000 a week. A Member of Parliament's salary looks rather small in comparison.
I have explained the problem with wages, but I shall concentrate on the problem with the negotiations between the European Commission and the premier league. Let me give a few figures to set the scene. The value of television rights for the premiership has increased since 1992 from around £280 million for a five-year deal to £1.1 billion for 2001–04. That is a huge inflationary increase. Mario Monti of the European Commission has called the collective selling of TV rights
"illegal, anti-competitive, consumer-unfriendly and tantamount to price fixing".
I do not agree. I referred to the football family and if there were ever a need for collectivism, it is in the selling of TV rights. If we simply allow clubs to sell rights individually, we know what the results will be. Those at the top of the game will have no problem selling their TV rights, but others will have no chance of agreeing a deal. Only through the collective selling of rights will benefits be fed further down the chain and distributed more widely.
Let us examine in more detail the problem with the European Commission. I hope that, in this debate, we shall consider the consequences of its ruling and ask for Government support and intervention to ensure that the Commission understands the Government's view of the impact of its decision on the game and communities throughout our country. That is best summed up with a quote from Jonathan Michie of Birkbeck college who said:
"The commission doesn't like the fact that the Premier League clubs band together to sell the TV rights to Premiership games. It smacks of the collusion that Adam Smith warned was always close behind any meeting of business people."
The Commission does not
"like the collectivity, or exclusivity—with rights going to a single broadcaster. But we've been here before. In the illustrious history of the office of fair trading, the OFT has only once suffered defeat in the restrictive practices court. That was when it took on the Premier League. Witness after witness testified that the OFT simply did not understand football. You can't organise a successful league without colluding. But the Premiership's victory was bought at a price. It agreed that 5 per cent. of the TV money would go to support non-league football—the 'grassroots' of the game. Could a similar deal be struck with the European Commission?"
Two points from Jonathan's Michie's comments are vital to this debate. First, he said that
"the OFT simply did not understand football."
I maintain that the European Commission simply does not understand football. Secondly, the victory was bought on the basis that 5 per cent. of the TV money would be distributed to grassroots football and £20 million went to the Football Foundation, which is spending the money on improving stadiums and providing community support and facilities for clubs throughout the land. I am extraordinarily grateful, as I am sure are all hon. Members, for the contribution made by the Football Foundation to junior and smaller clubs. It is of huge benefit to the game. That 5 per cent. was won as part of the OFT ruling. At the moment, the European Commission and the premier league are
194WH
locked in discussions and trying to reach a decision that will not, unless there is a strong voice from fans and the Government, best serve the football family and allow for wider redistribution.
Torben Toft, the Commission's principal administrator, explained its position and set out a number of characteristics. He said that everybody would agree that sport forms an important social function. He added:
"The Commission therefore fully subscribes to the Declaration on the specific characteristic of sport adopted by the European Council in Nice in 2000."
So, the principal administrative executive who is responsible for the whole debate admits that sport's special place means that there is an opt-out clause in relation to the Nice treaty of 2000. As the collective selling of TV rights takes place in a sporting context, it is not illegal because there is an opt-out in respect of the Nice treaty. Torben Toft also recognises that sport is big business. That part of his argument leads him to conclude that the Commission has the right, on an individual case basis, to question whether anti-competitive practice is taking place.
In the paper, Torben Toft also agrees that there is such a thing as solidarity. He states:
"This interdependence may require certain solidarity measures to be applied among the participants in a sport, including financial solidarity measures. The Commission accepts such solidarity measures as part of the special character of sport. The Commission would not as such interfere with the manner in which solidarity measures are financed."
So, the person responsible for the Commission's inquiry accepts that sport is a special case because of the Nice treaty and accepts the principle of solidarity. However, there is still the farce of continued argument, debate and prevarication by the Commission.
Mr. Mark Field: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his interesting analysis. Given the similarities in relation to the Spanish and Italian leagues, which are the only two comparable European leagues, will he tell us whether there are collective or exclusive TV selling rights in those countries and how the European Commission has analysed them?
Mr. Clarke: I shall certainly try to help as best I can. There is a difference of opinion between different nation states. Some have decided that collective selling is anti-competitive and have forced leagues across Europe to enter into single-club agreements. The best way in which I can describe the success of that is to say that there have not been any. In fact, there has been absolute chaos. Leagues have not been able to start on time because clubs have not been able to complete matters in relation to their TV selling rights.
Mr. Adrian Bailey: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is partly as a result of that situation that the state of football in the lower leagues in European countries is considerably inferior to the thriving competition in this country?
Mr. Clarke: That is an important point. Forgive me if I go off at a little bit of a tangent, but, coming from Northampton, I am quite up on the problems that our

195WH
shoe manufacturing industry faced in the early 1960s when it could not compete with mass production. The Northampton shoe industry survived, and many hon. Members favour shoes made in Northampton, as opposed to anywhere else, because of their quality.
Across Europe, TV companies have concentrated on what they call quality and there has been a fallout lower down the leagues. No other European country supports 92 league clubs in the way that we do.
We have to make a decision and I hope that we make the right one. We either protect clubs in communities and allow Britain's football stock to continue to provide entertainment throughout the country in most major towns and cities, or we let it go to the market in such a way that our leagues will become similar to those in Europe, where there is a top-heavy elite structure with nothing underneath, and clubs fold.
We have to ask whether there is a special case for sport, or for football. Should we leave it to the market and allow clubs to close, or do we have a responsibility to protect those clubs as community assets? After all, they provide a tremendous quality and quantity of entertainment to people in those towns and cities.
The local council in my constituency, Northampton borough council, was responsible for the construction of Sixfields community stadium, which is the home of our local football club. It is the most visited of the leisure centres in the area. I use the words leisure centre on purpose, because every year thousands of people attend Sixfields community stadium for their entertainment, in the same way as people would go the theatre, but in greater numbers. We accept the need to protect theatre culture and places of entertainment within towns and cities.
Mr. Bailey: Does my hon. Friend agree that increasingly football clubs play a major role in their local communities in providing support and activities that divert young people from potentially antisocial behaviour? They work with local authorities and other bodies in helping to improve educational standards and provide previously disaffected and marginalised young people with a sense of purpose that previously did not exist. The loss of such clubs would be very damaging in relation to the broader agenda for community cohesion.
Mr. Clarke: Yes, I accept my hon. Friend's point. In fact, I would go further. I praise the Football Foundation and the premier league for ensuring that such projects are continuously funded.
One of my favourites schemes was called scribbling and dribbling—I will not embarrass the club that ran it. The scheme involved disaffected youngsters with poor attendance at school. The local football club allowed them to come in in the morning to ensure that they did their scribbling, which was English and mathematics based around football. The mathematics work was based around problems such as, "Club A wins this game, club B wins another game. Who is top of the league at the end of the week?" Their English work was based on match reports and writing articles for programmes that were actually published. As a reward for their hard work, the afternoon was spent dribbling; there was organised football training for both genders, so that they could see the benefits of their hard work.
196WH
That scheme, like the playing for success scheme, is the sort of thing that football clubs can provide for communities, but they can do so only if they have support in the wider game, and if the money is coming in. If clubs find that their turnover is low, their gates are low, their wage bills are high and they are losing money week on week, the first things that will go are the community aspects of their work. That would be a great shame. Although I applaud the premier league for its redistribution of the 5 per cent. figure, I hope that the settlement with the European Commission is not based entirely on the assumption that everything will be okay if more games are shown on television. That is the real danger.
Last Thursday the premier league issued its tenders for the new television rights package post-2004. That was based on gold, silver and bronze packages, and the concept of breaking up the television rights deal so that more companies could apply and there would be more football on television. Both the premier league and the European Commission have fallen into the trap of believing that the football supporter simply wants more football on television. That is not the case.
Torben Toft of the European Commission, who is responsible for the inquiry, said:
"Let me illustrate with an example from England. Nearly 400 games are played each season in the English Premier League. Only … 100 games are broadcast live. The remaining games are only shown as highlights—if at all. The example clearly shows that a restriction of output limits the consumer's choice".
The football season is only 30 weeks of the year. A hundred games over 30 weeks is three live games a week, and that is without games in the Champions league or highlights from the Nationwide league. I believe that football supporters have reached their limit in respect of the amount of football that they can watch on television and that some of the broadcasting scheduling difficulties have caused huge problems for English football fans.
We talk about games being scheduled at 6.30 on a Sunday.
Dr. Vincent Cable: I have the Torben Toft paper in front of me. One of the points that he makes is that he and the Commission have no objection to collective selling, but they object to one media company, Sky television, having exclusive access. That is the issue; it is not the principle of collective selling.
Mr. Clarke: I accept that to a degree, but the premier league will tender its product and at present Sky has dominance in the market. I believe that the premier league is doing its best to break up the package to encourage bids from other TV companies. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that there is an inherent danger of there being one lead bidder, but we cannot blame football or the premier league for that. However, football will suffer unless we get the right deal for football clubs.
The all-party parliamentary football group has spoken to fans individually and collectively. They say that they do not want more games on TV and support the collective selling of TV rights as a league product. That is the phrase that I want hon. Members to focus on a league product. When people watch the premier league, they do not watch just one club. Their

197WH
excitement and enjoyment are based on all the issues—who will win the league, who will be relegated, what impact a certain game will have on the league table and the decision. Therefore, they are watching a league product. I believe that the premier league and the European Commission are wrong to accept collective selling if there is consumer benefit, because consumer benefit does not necessarily mean more scheduled games on TV. Another way is to ensure that more money is redistributed from the TV rights deals to the game in general.
Andy Burnham: Does my hon. Friend agree that part of the problem is that the Commission's analysis limits the definition of consumer benefit to television viewers and does not consider those who consume football in all its forms, particularly those who pay to go to matches? Would it not help the debate if the Commission were to look more generally at those who pay to watch football?
Mr. Clarke: I said earlier that I had the feeling that the European Commission did not understand football. Its abject failure so far to understand the needs of football supporters leads me to agree with my hon. Friend that it has not broadened the concept and benefits of consumer choice to the wider fan base.
The Commission accepts an exemption. Again in the report Torben Toft says:
"The Commission considers that an exemption pursuant to Article 81(3) would be possible where there is a proportionate balance between the restrictions created by the joint selling arrangement and its consumer benefits.
A joint selling arrangement has the potential of improving production and distribution to the advantage for football clubs, broadcasters and viewers, since it leads to the creation of a single point of sale for the acquisition of a packaged league media product. A league product is a product, which is focused on the competition as a whole, and not on individual football clubs participating in the competition. Many viewers wish to have the opportunity to follow the development of the competition as such and enabling the creation of a league media products seems to be the best way of achieving this."
In focusing on more games on television, the European Commission is creating ever-increasing difficulties for football fans following their clubs around the country. There are examples of fans having to travel the length and breadth of the country at 6.30 on a Sunday evening, when public transport is very poor and when they have to work the next morning. They must travel because of television scheduling. In the discussions, I hope that the European Commission and the premier league try to focus on the other consumer benefits that could be afforded to Britain's football fans.
There is a danger of talking percentages. Even the Football Foundation realises that the 5 per cent. deal that it secured as part of the OFT ruling means little if the TV rights money decreases to such a low level that 5 per cent. does not give it sufficient cash to support its current projects—it rightly wants £20 million. The premier league has a responsibility to the rest of the football structure. The Nationwide league is a feeder league, which enhances and improves the quality of football in the premier league by bringing on young players and allowing premier league clubs to loan young
198WH
players to clubs in the Nationwide league to learn their trade. It is time that the Nationwide league was rewarded for that continued work.
Mr. Bailey: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. There is a potential double whammy. If a lower bid from the successful TV company or companies arises from these negotiations and if an increased number of matches, particularly evening matches, are televised live, there will be less money for redistribution to the lower leagues. There will also be more live matches impacting on the attendances of lower league sides and, in particular, non-league sides, which means that there will be a further diminution of revenue to those clubs. It is essential that the amount of money obtained by the deal is maintained and that it is redistributed.
Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend is correct in saying that we must examine the broader picture and how the deal can benefit clubs in the lower leagues. Because of the time—I am sure that other hon. Members want to speak—I shall curtail my remarks.
As football supporters, we have an opportunity to impact on the debate. I say to the European Commission and—I support the premier league's case that the European Commission is wrong to challenge the collective selling arrangements—to a lesser degree the Premier league that here is an opportunity to widen the consumer benefit to ensure that the redistribution of TV money goes far further and to protect the game at all levels across every town and city within the UK. Clubs will fold if they do not do so. I hope that the Government agree to intervene and that they will comment to the Commission. I also hope that they will examine the impact of their actions on some clubs.
My last point concerns the Inland Revenue. It is time for an inquiry into the differential treatment of football clubs by the Inland Revenue. When Northampton Town looked for a way out of its financial difficulties, the Inland Revenue said, "No, 100p in the pound. We want 100 per cent. of the money that you owe us." It has the right to do that, but it said to Leicester City, "We will accept 10p in the pound." It has not got the right to do that when it said to Swindon Town, "We will give you a payment holiday." That holiday will probably conclude when the Exchequer loses its preferential creditor status. It is not right that York City, which was close to going out of business, should be told that it can settle at 64p in the pound, while the ruling for Leicester is 10p. There is an imbalance in the way that the Inland Revenue treats football clubs and I hope that the Government will intervene to ensure that football clubs are treated with more equity and that the Revenue's inflexibility does not drive them out of business.
The debate has highlighted some of the problems that football faces. I do not underestimate the severity of the problem; long-established and well-loved league clubs could go out of business, but we can prevent that if the Government intervene in the way that we, as supporters, demand.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind hon. Members that it is the convention in these 90-minute

199WH
Adjournment debates to commence the first of the three winding-up speeches 30 minutes before the conclusion, which leaves us 25 minutes for debate. I ask the four hon. Members who wish to catch my eye to take that into account, although I appreciate that the topic is best served by discussion rather than formal debate. I also ask hon. Members to bear in mind that comments must be brief and pertinent when they intervene or respond to the inevitable interventions.
10.6 am
Ms Joan Walley: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall be brief and do my best not to ask for extra time.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Clarke) on securing the debate and covering the issue relating to the European Commission so well that I need not cover the ground again. He outlined a crisis in football and put his finger on one of the problems relating to the role of European Competition Commissioner Monti, whose investigation could have a long-term destabilising effect on football in this country if action is not taken.
This is my first opportunity to welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith) to her new post as Minister for Industry and the Regions and Deputy Minister for Women and Equality. In a previous incarnation, she visited Port Vale football club in my constituency and opened a facility under the scribbling and dribbling football scheme. Computers were set up by the Department for Education and Skills and my hon. Friend was photographed kicking a football. She is aware of the seriousness, scope and breadth of the debate.
Many members of the all-party group on football feel very frustrated about the difficulties in getting a cross-cutting debate on football on the agenda of Government and Parliament. The last time we debated the subject it was on the topic of listed rights, which was only a pretext for the cross-cutting debate, taking into account competition and sports policy, that we really wanted. I am pleased that the Minister, who I think still has responsibility for sport, is present.
There are Inland Revenue issues to be taken into consideration. Those clubs that are subject to administration, or on the brink of it, would face further problems if they also suffered the difficulties of social exclusion that would result from clubs being put into administration and forced out of the Football league. The role of sport and exercise in our national life and the way in which we deal with the problem of obesity are part of the same debate.
Will the Minister tell us in her response whether convincing action can be taken to take forward the Nice declaration, and to resolve some of the issues that were not properly dealt with when the European Scrutiny Committee debated them? On the basis of what has been negotiated in Europe, does the Minister have the power and the remit to go back to Commissioner Monti and the part of the European Commission that deals with competition and re-argue the case that we cannot let competition policy set by the European Union undermine and destabilise football in the United Kingdom? Can the Minister also tell us what scope there is for the European Parliament to listen to the UK Government?
200WH
I welcome the fact that the Government have set up the independent Football Commission. However, there is a danger with respect to the remit and responsibilities of that commission. Unless it works closely with the Government and unless the Government and Parliament can influence the football agenda, there will be concerns about the effect of that policy. If the money no longer goes into the premiership, that will have an effect not only on the premiership clubs and their ability to compete but on the remainder of the clubs in the Football league and in grass-roots football.
The 5 per cent. extra income that was negotiated after the Office of Fair Trading inquiry was a life saver for much of grass-roots football, which also depends on the Prince's Trust football initiative and on various grants given by the Football Foundation. There are also campaigns such as "Let's Kick Racism Out Of Football". We must ensure that all those initiatives are properly funded. We must ensure that we do not consider such matters exclusively, but that we take account of the solidarity of football.
In conclusion, in the spirit of the debate, I want the Minister to tell us what the Government can do. I want to ensure that when issues are debated in this forum we give an imperative to the Government to take the necessary action. If the issues under discussion are not resolved, many more clubs will find themselves in serious trouble, and many of the Government's social exclusion policies will be undermined.
10.13 am
Mr. John Grogan: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Clarke) on securing the debate and on speaking with such passion and depth of knowledge. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister on her new appointment. We were contemporaries at university. Her political skills were very evident in those days. Her football dribbling skills were less evident then, but have obviously developed with maturity.
I am delighted to make a brief intervention in the debate, not least because at present I can only speak about football; I can no longer play it. Last week, playing as a five-a-side goalie, I dislocated my little finger, and had to retire hurt after three minutes. The House will, however, be glad to know that I made a save.
I take a slightly contrary view on the issue of EU competition policy and competition policy in general. I believe that its influence on football has been generally benign. In the early days of this Government, some in the all-party football group wanted a regulator for football. I believe that in the absence of such a regulator, competition policy has had some beneficial effects; not least the 5 per cent. settlement for grass-roots football that resulted from the OFT investigation. Football was way behind some of the more progressive sports in instituting such schemes; cricket did so much earlier.
We must bear in mind that if we want action rather than just talk—as my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) said—more pressure must be put on the football authorities. The only reason why we are discussing the issues today and why the premier league sends us briefings is that it feels under pressure. If we are honest, we must acknowledge that there is as much chance of the European Union

201WH
insisting that every premier league football club sells its own television rights as there is of it insisting that all bananas be straight. That has not been an issue for at least some months. What has been an issue is changing the selling of the television rights; unbundling them. In the words of the Commission's press release on 20 December 2002, which draws attention to the proposition:
"One effect of joint selling, especially when coupled with exclusivity, is that only big media groups can afford the acquisition and exploitation of the bundle of rights. This leads to higher prices and shuts out competitors from key content. Football fans are also potentially harmed since they are offered less football on TV, or no coverage at all in those cases where they do not subscribe to pay-TV as there are no live matches on free TV."
Let us not forget that many of our constituents will never be able to afford subscription television. Nor will many of them—for reasons such as family or work commitments, age or infirmity—ever be able to watch live football at grounds. Under the current agreement, they are denied any access to seeing our main national sport's premier league on live, free-to-air television.
The package that the premier league offered last week bears some resemblance to the settlement reached with UEFA. We have been down this route before. The world did not cave in when the Commission insisted that UEFA offered its rights to a larger number of broadcasters.
Andy Burnham: Does my hon. Friend agree that those circumstances were entirely different from the sale of media rights to one national domestic league? In the case of UEFA, the Commission required that all matches in the Champions league be shown, yet not all matches are of interest to viewers in each of the countries. Only games concerning teams from those countries are of interest to the viewers in those countries. The comparison is not relevant.
Mr. Grogan: Ultimately, television markets are national. I understand that UEFA sold games in different national markets. It did not sell them collectively throughout Europe. In the end, the British television market gave clubs more money under the new contracts than under the old ones. It is by no means certain that unbundling the contracts in the way in which the premier league has done will result in a collapse in revenue.
We heard about three packages; gold, silver and bronze. I understand that the Commission is scrutinising the premier league package to see whether the package meets its requirements. I would ask whether the package gives free-to-air broadcasting a fair chance to make a credible bid. There are 38, 38 and 62 games respectively in each package, which is a large number of games for ITV, BBC and Channel Five, who might not want to show quite so many. The Commission will scrutinise the package next week, and I do not believe that the principle behind that is terrible.
It is interesting that the premier league has not yet bowed to the admirable pressure applied by my hon. Friends the Members for Leigh (Andy Burnham) and for Stalybridge and Hyde (James Purnell), who have
202WH
urged it that the matter is in its hands. My hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde, who is not here today, said:
"The ball is very much in the Premier League's court to come back with an offer on redistribution in the game that will allow the current arrangements to stand."
There has been no such offer. It is sticking with 5 per cent., despite pressure from the Football Supporters Association and others to raise the figure. In its briefings, the premier league talks about 13 per cent., but that includes a lot of money that goes largely to the Professional Footballers Association, not the grass roots of the game. Again, the Commission could well be looking to the premier league to increase that figure from 5 per cent.
I shall conclude by making a couple of general remarks. As well as crying foul to the Commission, the premier league would do well to put its own house in order. The premier league club nearest to my constituency is Leeds United, which has been disgracefully mismanaged in recent years. Leeds United would do well to get its own house in order rather than bleating to MPs; as could the team that I support, Bradford City, which had a glorious period in the premier league as far as the supporters were concerned but a disastrous period in terms of its financial management.
The premier league could do something to increase its revenue. I am surprised that what has been offered does not contain a package for supporters of individual clubs to buy television coverage of every game, home and away, that is played by their club in the premier league. There would be a market for that and it is one suggestion of how to ensure buoyancy in the pay-TV market and increase revenue for the premier league.
I end by saying that EU competition policy is subtle as regards football and allows for exemption. We have heard a little about the listed events that allow interventions in the market so that the big football games in Europe are available free-to-air for all football fans. I say to the Minister that it is very gratifying that next year the European championships will be available not just to those who can afford them on Sky, but to everyone via BBC and ITV. It is a bit sad that under the new Football Association deal, it appears that we will lose competitive England internationals—the games that everyone wants to watch—from terrestrial television.
The FA under Adam Crozier was very progressive on such matters and wanted the maximum exposure for the England team. It now looks as if it will sell out to the highest bidder. There is a case for listing competitive England football matches, such as that great game against Germany a couple of years ago. Such games should be available to everyone and there is a strong case for listing them.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must emphasise to the House that I may be acting as referee on this occasion, but I do not have the discretion to allow injury time. We have only nine minutes left.
10.21 am
Andy Burnham: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Clarke) on securing the debate today and on the knowledgeable and passionate way in which he sets out his case, which was befitting a Northampton Town director. Although he supports the Cobblers, he very rarely talks them.
Last month I joined my hon. Friend and others in Brussels at a meeting to express our concerns to Mario Monti about his challenge to the premier league deal. We did not go to represent any vested interest, other than the public interest and the best interests of football. Our argument was straightforward. People are not crying out for more football on television; the balance is pretty good. What worries football supporters most is the game's parlous finances; the gulf between the big clubs and the rest. That is the biggest issue in the game today, and the EC's intervention has to take that into account.
What grounds do we have to say that? Last year, the Football Association commissioned a huge piece of research into the state of the game. They did not ask people in the street, but 6,500 people involved at all levels of the game, from Sunday morning leagues to premier league chairmen. The survey, as reported by David Bond in The Sunday Times, revealed that there was deep concern among all groups about the financial health of the sport. Some 90 per cent. of club officials thought that premier league clubs kept too much of the money available to the game.
The then chief executive of the FA said that the report would be used as a basis for future policy, but now that he has gone it is probably safe to assume that the report is gathering dust; that is why the intervention from Brussels is so important. It could actually save English football from itself, but it could also make matters far worse. I believe that the latter will be true in this case because the policy framework for competition in sport in Europe is muddled.
In the United States, sport is big business, but is exempt from stringent anti-trust legislation. In the early 1960s, a US court ruled that the collective sale of television rights by sporting leagues violated US anti-trust law. Congress in the US acted quickly to grant an exemption, which still stands today for American football, baseball, hockey and basketball. That exemption was made because Congress realised that sports have to collaborate, share and spread resources; otherwise the product is dominated by a few, and is no longer of interest to the viewing public.
In Europe, we have a muddled policy. While the treaty of Rome cannot be faulted for building a more prosperous Europe with opportunities spread around, it has constantly come into conflict with sporting provisions and sport's internal rules. That is what the case is all about. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South is absolutely right to say that the Commission has failed to take a wide view of football in this case, as the OFT did when it challenged the premier league. The Commission has made the same mistake.
If competition policy officials were prepared to widen their scope slightly, they would find strong competition arguments to back up collective selling, exclusive selling and systematic redistribution. Article 81 of the treaty
204WH
allows restricted arrangements to stand if they improve the production of the product. In this case the product is professional football, and it is basically accepted that the more competitive it is, the better it is. If there were no restrictions, the big clubs would get bigger and bigger. The more that we have measures to balance out competition, the better the product becomes.
In short, the more distribution we have, the more competitive the sport. We proposed to the Commission that a figure of at least 10 per cent. should be made available to reinvest in the football league. If we enabled more clubs to compete properly, we would get a more vibrant and successful television product. If we carry on as we are, more and more clubs will go out of business. I am chair of a body called Supporters Direct and we come into contact with clubs in trouble on a week-by-week basis. I genuinely fear for the future of 20 to 30 football clubs in this country if something is not done to help them soon. There is plenty of money in professional football to see every club in this country right for the future and to give them a chance to succeed and to compete.
There may be some in premier league boardrooms around this country who want 30 or 40 professional clubs, but I do not want that and neither do supporters. The Daily Mirror deserves congratulation on taking the campaign forward by telling the competition authorities and football that we care about more than the three or four biggest clubs in this country. I call on the premier league to get the pledge on the table and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) said, increase redistribution. There should be a 10 per cent. redistribution pledge, and Opposition and Government Members would get behind the premier league in making that case to Europe. A strong premier league television package with greater redistribution is more in the public interest than breaking up the rights, which we seem to be heading towards at the moment.
10.25 am
Dr. Vincent Cable: I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Clarke). He has done us a big favour by securing a debate on this issue. Football is a big business, but it also something about which millions of people care passionately. It is important that we debate the subject in the intelligent and thoughtful way in which he introduced the debate. I also congratulate the Minister, with whom I will cross swords many times in Department of Trade and Industry debates.
Unlike all other Members who have spoken, I do not represent a major football club. Hampton and Richmond Borough football club suffered the ignominy of being relegated from the Ryman league last year, and its weekly attendance is 200; it is not in the big time. It is interesting to ask why such a team can survive and continue to be viable whereas the team with which I grew up, York City, is teetering on the brink of extinction. The team to which I graduated from York City, Leeds United, has also been teetering on the brink of insolvency. Something is fundamentally wrong with the economics of big-time football.
The paradox, which the hon. Member for Northampton, South outlined very well, is that the game is in crisis while a vast sum of additional money is

205WH
flowing into it. On television rights, 10 years ago television income brought football about £60 million a year over the then five-year contract. Now it brings in £600 million a year; a massive increase in the flow of resources into the game, but an increase that co-exists with a state of extreme crisis.
Although I do not represent a football club, the headquarters of another game, the Rugby Football Union, is located in my constituency. Although rugby is a very different game, it manifests many of the same problems. It has progressed from bumbling amateurism to professionalism and business within a couple of decades. There is the same tendency for the premier league to coalesce into a cartel, which has caused the Rotherham problem. There is the same problem of salaries being driven up and the clubs being unable to match them through their income. Strong clubs—in this case Bristol and Bath—are unable to survive relegation. The same dilemmas exist, but there is one fundamental difference; in rugby, the national team dominates. If Eriksson's team had to play week in and week out in the premier league, it would probably struggle in mid-table. In that sense, the structure is fundamentally different, but there are many common elements.
I agree with the hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan)—he gave a balanced account of the European Commission's point of view—that many of the things that the European Commission says about football are either innocuous or sensible. It has a legitimate role—the European Union should not interfere in many other areas of national life—because the Champions league sets the terms of trade for football across Europe and there is a European market in transfers. The European Commission is legitimately involved in football from the point of view of competition.
Andy Burnham: Although the European Commission may have a legitimate role, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the real target is the broadcasting industry, not football? The Commission is using this case to stimulate a more competitive broadcasting industry, but the result may be a less competitive football industry, and it has failed to make that clear.
Dr. Cable:I endorse part of the hon. Gentleman's comments. The European Commission is trying to deal with competition issues in two industries at the same time; football and broadcasting. As I interpret its conclusions, it is primarily concerned with opening up broadcasting rather than closing down football, but there is a legitimate debate as to whether it has the balance right.
I have read the Torben Toft paper, too. I guess that he is the guy who determines policy. Monti is the big man at the top, the spokesman, but Toft does the thinking behind it. It is clear from his paper that he understands the economics of football and is sympathetic towards football. Several points come out clearly. He understands that competition cannot be allowed to take out the weak teams, because that destroys the game and leads to a Harlem Globetrotters situation, with one team going round giving exhibition games.
The paper also makes a strong defence of the principle of solidarity. The game needs weaker teams, for several reasons; partly because of the importance of the
206WH
community, partly to provide a pool of talent—allowing young players to come up and older ones to go down—but, above all, to provide a balance. That is something that we are losing. I spent some years in Scotland, where there are now effectively two teams; it is not a competitive league. The premier league is heading the same way. I grew up watching York City, and there was a realistic prospect that if York City drew Newcastle in the FA cup on a muddy day, it might win and get through to the semi-final. The chances of that happening now are far more remote; the balance is being lost.
The Torben Toft paper makes it clear that the game needs balance and solidarity. As the hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham) said, the Commission's primary concern is to deal with the problem of the broadcasting monopoly. It is right to challenge—the Government are probably more reticent about doing so—Sky television's monopoly of television rights. It is legitimate to open up that question.
There are many ways of redistributing income in the game other than by the formula adopted by the English premier league. The hon. Gentleman cited the experience of the United States, where collective selling is accepted as a principle, as it is by the Commission paper. The Commission does not question the collective selling of football rights. The United States seeks the balance in its different sports in various ways, although in many respects it is much more aggressively commercial than we are. As I understand it, in its national football league, 40 per cent. of all gate receipts and 95 per cent. of the income from television rights—which are with a multiplicity of television companies and not just one as in this country—is distributed to the other clubs, whereas in the premier league only 50 per cent. is. The distribution system in the United States game is much more progressive.
In basketball, to prevent the corrosive effect of enormously inflated salaries, the United States has imposed a salary cap. That is something that we do not contemplate in this country; however, it is conceivable on a European level, although probably not on a national level. Another innovation that the United States has introduced into its competitive sports system is progressive taxation. In basketball, the big clubs are taxed on their gate receipts and television income, and the tax is redistributed to the other clubs.
We can envisage different combinations of selling arrangements and income redistribution to produce what we all want; a healthy national game, rather than a concentration of talent and money in a few clubs. It can be done in many different ways. The suggestion by the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) that we should have a more open-minded and cross-cutting discussion of the issue is a welcome innovation that I strongly support.
In the short term, we must deal with the Commission paper. Like the hon. Member for Selby, I believe that it is an opportunity rather than a threat. If the proposed changes are limited to opening football up to three television contracts rather than one, and if they bring in their wake a more generous formula—hopefully the 10 per cent. distribution formula—our national game will he in a stronger position, rather than a weaker one.
10.34 am
Mr. Mark Field: I welcome the Minister to her new role. I am sure that she had a slightly heavy heart when she realised that she would have to discuss football in Westminster Hall today.
I thank the hon. Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Clarke) for raising an important issue that vexes many of us who have a passion for the national game. He and I are members of the all-party group on football, which is conducting a full investigation into financing and other aspects of the national game.
I am an unashamed soccer supporter. It infuriates and baffles many of my friends that, religiously, at quarter to five every Saturday afternoon during the season, I have to be glued to a television screen to find out the results. If I am out and about, I have to be as near as possible to a radio to find out how my team gets on. I should point out that I think that the season lasts slightly longer than 30 weeks of the year; that is what Mrs. Field would say.
Those who are not members of the soccer-supporting cult find it difficult to understand the passion. Like the hon. Gentleman, I support a club in the third division. I am sad to say that it was also in the third division last season, unlike Northampton Town. The clubs will be fighting each other next time out. Soccer is a passion close to my heart. My club, which I have supported since I was five, was one of the clubs in administration only last year, and is making a slow and gradual recovery.
The model of ownership in football is bizarre and I have some sympathy with the Minister and, to that extent, with the European Commission which is trying to develop a set of rules that are sensible, within an economic framework, for the footballing industry. In one sense, we are talking about the economics of the madhouse. Who would really want to invest in a football company? As the hon. Gentleman said, a longstanding Northampton Town fan, and no doubt a successful business man in every other business he operates, is effectively bankrolling the local club. That is the case in many of the 92 professional clubs in the English game.
Local communities also find themselves as stakeholders in the game. It has been rightly pointed out by a number of those who have contributed to the debate that football goes beyond simply the large clubs that are able to get all the television coverage. Indeed, it goes beyond the 92 league clubs. As the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) rightly pointed out, it goes right down to community level, with a couple of hundred people regularly—or irregularly—turning up on cold, wet winter afternoons to watch a local, semi-professional club.
The hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley) made a good point when she said that she wanted the Minister to see what the Government could do to ensure that there would be action in Europe. If there is not, there will be long-term destabilising effects on the smaller clubs. There is also a real worry that there might be short-term destabilising effects, with perhaps dozens of clubs going into administration very quickly.
The hon. Member for Northampton, South analysed the European aspect. He is quite right to say that, generally, clubs in Europe are left to make their own deals. One reason why there are far fewer professional
208WH
clubs—even in countries such as Germany, which has got two professional leagues in the Bundesliga and regional leagues beyond that—is the nature of the sale of rights. It would be regrettable if we were to go down that route.
I hope that the Government will do all that they can to ensure that the Commission is made aware of the way in which community values are at the core of the footballing industry in this country.
The hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), in his quick-fire, 100 mph contribution, made, as ever, sensible and informed comments. As has been pointed out, he had an important role to play prior to being elected to the House.
The financing of soccer is bizarre, to put it mildly. The quaint days of the maximum wage ended about the time of my birth, which coincided with the time when Northampton Town was going onwards and upwards. I was born in 1964 when Northampton was on the way up to the first division. It later came down almost as quickly, but I shall draw a veil over that. At that time, in 1964, when "Match of the Day" was introduced, television rights were worth tens of thousands of pounds per season. The hon. Member for Northampton, South was right to identify that a major turning point was 1992. Money had increased during the 1970s and 1980s and in 1992 the premier league was created, led by the big five clubs at the time—Arsenal, Everton, Liverpool, Manchester United and Tottenham Hotspur—which wanted a much larger slice of the cake. In part and in the short term, they were able to increase the size of that cake, but we are now at a crossroads.
The hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) was right, if a little complacent, when he said that there is no crisis. Surely, one of the problems now is that some of the largest, cash-hungry, professional clubs may be tempted to unbundle, especially as the overall pot of TV money likely to diminish substantially when contract rights are renegotiated, whether with BSkyB or other operators, in the next year or two.
Spiralling amounts of cash have gone into the game during the past decade and the worry is that so much of it has ended up in the hands or pockets of the talent—the players—but also in those of agents and peripheral figures. Now that the cash juggernaut looks as though it will slow down sharply, there is a question about the future viability of TV rights arrangements.
It has been pointed out that the premier league now has TV rights deals worth £1.1 billion over the three years 2001–04. That was negotiated in 2000 and it is worth repeating the comments of Mario Monti, the EU commissioner for competition, who said that the deal was illegal, anti-competitive, consumer unfriendly and tantamount to price fixing. That displays some of the grave concerns in the minds of many people involved in football. I suspect that it would be difficult for the Commission to row back entirely from those comments when it comes to doing what it believes is right for football in the United Kingdom.
The collectivity and exclusivity of the deal that is now on the table offends many, but it is in the nature of organising a league that there will be some collective TV and other rights; that will lead to some collusion. A number of speakers have rightly pointed out that, in the past, the OFT and, more recently, the Commission have

209WH
failed to understand the grass roots of the game and the way in which the economics of football operate. On this point, I agree with the hon. Member for Leigh and the Liberal Democrat spokesman that the Commission's attack is focused on broadcasters rather than the game, but I am afraid that there will be collateral damage for many of our football clubs if an arrangement is made that penalises broadcasters and results in much less money coming into the national game. We must keep an eye on how that pans out.
Looking to the future, I hope that the Minister will give at least some details of her thoughts, not just on the football industry—which is close to many hon. Members' hearts—but on one or two of the direct competition points. Clearly, the Government's competition policy has been open to question. I sat on the Standing Committee that considered the Enterprise Act 2002 and it became clear that there was a division between competition policy in many European countries and that adopted for many decades in the United States. There was an implication that the Government were beginning to look towards the US model. I would not necessarily find that objectionable, but there is grave concern that if there is no certainty about where the Government's competition policy is going, it might be difficult for them to represent the interests of football in the way we would hope.
Part of the premiership deal has been to give 5 per cent. of the TV money to the grass roots of the game. There is concern that the European Commission could find itself similarly bought out with, in effect, some sort of tariff, with BSkyB and all the other operators paying to avoid a further investigation. However, football's role as a social, sporting and cultural part of our way of life is still firmly in place, and one hopes that TV money will continue to support that in whatever framework is put in place with a new deal.
I can understand why Governments of all colours have steered clear of getting too actively involved in the professional game. Immediately after the May 1997 election, the instinct of the Labour Administration was to be more actively involved, but they quickly realised the potential pitfalls. I understand from reading Tom Bower's excellent book on the game that that was not least because one or two special advisers, such as the hon. Member for Leigh in his erstwhile life, quickly realised the pitfalls that would face any Government who interfered.
Andy Burnham: The hon. Gentleman talks about interference. Does he accept that the Government's intervention led to three important developments that improved the regulation of professional football? I am referring to the Football Foundation—a result of direct intervention—Supporters Direct, which has led to 93 not-for-profit supporters trusts owning all or part of their clubs, and the Independent Football Commission, which puts pressure on the regulators to try to improve regulation and governance of the national game.
Mr. Field: I accept that, but it was certainly felt in the afterglow of May 1997 that the Government might try to interfere not only in the administrative side but in a more fundamental way. It is fair to say that after the
210WH
Bradford fire in 1985 and the Hillsborough disaster in 1989, enormous amounts of public money went into the football industry; it would be wrong to assume that all that money could somehow be spent without a quid pro quo. It is understandable that the Government will feel that if the national game has had hundreds of millions of pounds of public money spent on it, it needs to get its house in order as far as possible. The Nice declaration recognised the uniqueness of sport as a whole and, although the European Union has little direct competency in this regard, it reflects, at the highest professional level, a not insignificant part of economic activity.
I know that the Minister will want to sum up all the contributions that have been made, but I should like to ask her two questions. First, in pure competition terms, how do the Government intend to defend the UK football industry, if at all, against the threat to its autonomy posed by the competition commissioners today and, potentially, at some future point?
Secondly, in view of the divergence from the European model of substantial dominance being the test and towards a more US-type competitiveness test, as espoused in the Enterprise Act 2002, what is the Government's general strategy on interference in football and, indeed, other industries? Is it enough to leave it to the free market or, given the deep-rooted community concerns in football, will the Government seek an accommodation with the premier league and smaller professional clubs beforehand?
10.48 am
The Minister for Industry and the Regions and Deputy Minister for Women and Equality (Jacqui Smith): I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, South (Mr. Clarke) on his success in obtaining the debate. It has been characterised by a great degree of knowledge and intelligent contributions, not least because football is one of those subjects on which everyone has an opinion. It always generates much interest, debate and concern.
The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) was wrong; I am pleased to debate football. My hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) is right to say that despite the fact that I am a patron of Redditch United girls football club my dribbling skills leave something to be desired. However, I am pretty confident about my ability to explain the offside rule and am willing to do so, although not perhaps in this debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Several hon. Members referred to the financial difficulties of football clubs, particularly lower league clubs. Although that is not strictly within the ambit of the debate, I will say that hon. Members have demonstrated in their contributions to the debate, and in much of their constituency work, their commitment to ensuring the continuation of the contribution that those clubs make to the community. We have heard from my hon. Friends the Members for Northampton, South and for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Ms Walley). They themselves often raise the tricky issue of salaries. Although I am here as a DTI Minister, I assure hon. Members that there is considerable interest and concern from my colleagues in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. As my hon. Friend the Member for

211WH
Leigh (Andy Burnham) outlined, there is already considerable support for the development of football through the Football Foundation and other Government initiatives.
Essentially, today's debate is about European competition policy and its implications for football. The issues highlighted by the case are summarised by the European Commission's statement of objections, namely that the exclusive nature of the present broadcasting arrangements erects barriers to broadcasters other than BskyB that may wish to transmit live coverage of premier league matches; and the arrangements prevent clubs from exploiting the rights to those premier league matches which are not shown as part of the core contract.
Notwithstanding our passion for sport, commercial sport is an important economic operation and, as such, it cannot and should not be exempt from the terms of competition law. The Government support the Commission and the premier league working together to make the sale of football rights as competitive as possible, as that benefits the broadcasting market and fans who watch football on television.
We need to set this issue in the context of competition law, and in particular in the competition framework of the UK. The Government believe that a strong competition policy benefits consumers. In particular, we have modernised the UK's competition law to give the competition authorities independence to investigate sectoral markets under clear competition principles. We have moved away from public interest tests by taking politics out of competition decisions, which will instead be taken by expert independent competition authorities using competition-based tests. Similarly, the Government support a rigorous enforcement of the competition rules by the Commission, acting independently on the basis of competition criteria. The Commission enforces the EU's competition rules and considers individual cases under those rules. Agreements between undertakings that restrict competition between member states are prohibited.
Several hon. Members referred to article 81 of the EC treaty and have asked about exemption. Exemption from EC competition rules is possible. There are four conditions listed under article 81(3) that must be satisfied if an agreement is to be exempted from a general prohibition. I do not intend to read these out, but in summary the test is that the restrictive aspects of the arrangements in question have to be indispensable to improving the product, benefiting consumers—perhaps fans or viewers—and encouraging solidarity, which is, as we have discussed, a fair distribution of broadcasting revenues between clubs. However, in this case, the Commission does not consider that an exemption under EU competition rules is justified, because it does not believe that exclusivity of coverage is essential to those features of the present arrangements that serve to improve the premier league product. Solidarity is important for sport and I know that the Commission recognises that.
Ms Walley: I refer my hon. Friend to the report by the Select Committee on European Scrutiny, which considered the Helsinki report and had concerns about where to draw the line in respect of competition law on professional sport. There was a view that the Minister at
212WH
the time had not scrutinised the issue. Has my hon. Friend found the time to go back to it? There is an important distinction between professional sport and the economic competition aspect.
Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend makes an important point, but I want to come to the characteristics of sport and the extent to which they have been considered in the debate. In relation to solidarity, the point of a league is that there is competition, which involves more than one club, and redistribution is necessary. I welcome calls from hon. Members to improve redistribution, notwithstanding the fact that the premier league has a good record in that respect compared with similar leagues. The question is whether exclusive selling is necessary for solidarity; there is a relationship between them, and a balance must be found.
Several hon. Members raised the special characteristics of sport in relation to whether the competition rules that I outlined—not least in respect of the Nice declaration of 2001—should be predominant in these cases. Arguments in support of exemption must be made in terms of the economic facts of the case. However, the Commission has indicated that it will have regard to sport's special characteristics.
The Government believe that exemptions under EC competition rules, tempered by the Nice declaration approach, form an adequate basis for assessing competition issues in sport. The Commission indicated in the statement of objections, which opened the present case, that it had already considered the special characteristics of the arrangement in framing its overall approach. That is reasonable; it is entirely likely that any joint arrangement that had comparable restrictive elements in a different, non-sporting, industry would already have been struck down. Although I understand my hon. Friends' frustrations, it is not necessarily the case that the specific characteristics of sport have not been, and cannot be, considered in this case.
That is the nature of competition policy, but it is not the whole story. Hon. Members rightly expressed anxiety about the health of the game and the interests of the fans. The Government are aware of the wider contribution of football, and have made a substantial investment in football as a means of taking forward key policy objectives in health, social cohesion and sports ground safety.
Premier league and other football clubs are centres of local communities, and we support the widest possible distribution of television and other income to all of them. We know, too, that the success of the premier league is closely bound up with the wider health of football in England; the premier league's support for the game from the football league to the grass roots could suffer if its broadcasting revenues were substantially reduced, which could affect football at all levels.
Andy Burnham: Will the Minister give way?
Jacqui Smith: No, I am short of time.
We should be aware of the market situation. For example, independent analysts suggest that the value of football rights for potential broadcasters may have weakened, notwithstanding the competitive circumstances in which the tenders might be made. It is

213WH
for the premier league to make its case and respond to the Commission's concerns, especially on issues such as solidarity where the premier league needs to show that the link between solidarity and joint selling cannot be broken without harm to the game. It is for both parties to consider an acceptable form of the final repackaging of broadcasting rights. The devil lies in the detail of any such conclusion and the premier league and the Commission are best placed to consider the position of other interested parties, including the fans and the broadcasters.
Hon. Members pushed me on what the Government may or may not do. I have made clear our position of independence with respect to competition legislation, but we are actively encouraging the premier league and the Commission to work together to reach a mutually agreeable solution, with the game, the fans and the viewers in mind. We shall continue to repeat that message.
Although we are rightly not intervening in the case itself, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has spoken with Commissioner Monti to make it clear that we want an early, equitable and effective solution and that we have concerns for the game and for the interests of the fans. In particular, and in response to specific concerns, my right hon. Friend emphasised that competitive joint selling aids the game as it allows the redistribution of profits from the premier league to the grass roots. We need to take advantage of good sense to ensure that the premier league and the Commission can conclude their negotiations as soon as practicable to bring certainty back into the game and to deliver many of the objectives shared by all of us involved in the debate today.

Area Cost Adjustment (Worcestershire)
11 am
Mr. Michael Foster: I begin by welcoming the Minister to his new role, and I make it clear from the outset that he is absolved of any responsibility for past decisions to which I may refer, and that any criticisms that I make of the Department for which he now speaks do not reflect on him.
I intend to make the case that the lack of any area cost adjustment top-up has a direct and adverse impact on public services in Worcestershire, and that if action is not taken to rectify the situation, the problem will get worse. I will refer mostly to the impact on education, but similar arguments also apply to other services provided by the county council.
I welcome the massive increase in revenue spending since 1997, especially in schools. The past few weeks have been difficult, as school funding became an issue, but it cannot be disputed that there has been a vast increase in education spending since 1997. I also want to place on record my belief that the new formula spending share, which, from April, replaced the old standard spending assessment, is an improvement, because children in Worcestershire are now treated in the same way as children from other parts of England, except with regard to the area adjustment. The basic pupil entitlement is the same wherever a child lives: the deprivation top-up applies to Worcestershire in the same way that it does elsewhere, and the sparsity factor is applied to sparsely populated areas in Worcestershire at the same rate as it is to other rural counties.
However, my welcome of the new system stops there. The area cost adjustment is added to the formula spending share in some areas but not in others. Worcestershire does not receive the area cost adjustment, but our neighbouring councils—Dudley, Birmingham, Warwick and Gloucester—do receive it. For all services in Worcestershire, the lack of the area cost adjustment top-up means the loss of some £10 million.
The area cost adjustment is primarily an adjustment to compensate local authorities that face high labour costs. The new earnings survey of average wage levels is used to calculate those higher costs. The logic applied by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister suggests that high labour costs in a council area mean that local authorities have to pay more to attract and retain staff because the competition for labour results in high salaries.
However, when I have asked parliamentary questions of the Department of Health, the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, I have been told that they have no evidence of variations in salary levels among key public sector staff such as social workers, librarians or accountants. Without such evidence, why should those wage supplements be put in place?
Moreover, the new earnings survey is based on wages earned where people work, not where they live, and that leads to a gross inconsistency. The deprivation factor and the sparsity factor are based on where people live, but the area cost adjustment is based on where people work. The flaw in the approach of the Office of the

215WH
Deputy Prime Minister means that an area that pays workers well, but to which those workers commute, can attract an area cost adjustment top-up for that local authority at the same time as that authority may attract a significant top-up for deprivation because it is relatively poor. The logic that is used does not stand up to scrutiny.
Large urban centres such as Birmingham will always attract higher salaried workers, as does the square mile in London. However, further out from the centre, in the suburbs, the wages earned will be lower, and that also tends to be where the workers live. That scenario applies to the west midlands: Birmingham and Coventry are the centre, whereas people typically live in places such as Worcestershire, but do not earn their living there. The daily traffic flows along the M5 and M42 are testimony to that. In my opinion travel-to-work areas are—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Frank Cook): Carry on for the moment, please.
Mr. Foster: Travel-to-work areas are more appropriate for calculating the area cost adjustment, but the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister ignores them. Travel time from Worcester city—[Interruption.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The fire alarm will clearly persist, so I shall suspend the sitting. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I will allow him some injury time.
11.5 am
Sitting suspended.
11.6 am
On resuming—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am reliably informed that the fire alarm has been disconnected, so we can smoulder in silence. We will have one minute of injury time.
Mr. Foster: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am always surprised at the lengths to which some people will go to stop Worcestershire getting a decent hearing in this place, but that takes the biscuit.
Travel time from Worcester city in the south of the county to Birmingham is about 40 minutes, which is not excessively long by London standards. However, from towns in the north of the county, such as Bromsgrove, it is a mere 20 minutes' commuting time to the heart of Birmingham. That explains why so many people choose to live in Worcestershire but enjoy the higher salaries earned in Birmingham. Places such as Worcestershire have to pay higher salaries to attract key staff because of the easy commute to the conurbation, where people's earnings can be so much higher. Ironically, on the grounds that the ODPM uses to justify its payment to Birmingham, Worcestershire should receive the area cost adjustment.
The area cost adjustment based on the new earnings survey is flawed, and it will get worse. Yesterday, I received a document from Advantage West Midlands, the local regional development agency, which contains
216WH
some useful statistical information. For example, it gives average weekly wages for areas in the region, based on the labour force survey, not the new earnings survey. The difference between the two surveys is that the new earnings survey calculates wages where they are earned, but the labour force survey calculates wage levels for workers based on where they live. My argument is that the labour force survey fits best with the top-ups that I mentioned earlier, and it would be far more logical to use that.
The labour force survey tells us that average wages are higher in Worcestershire than in all districts of the west midlands conurbation. For the west midlands region as a whole the average wage is £319.03; for Birmingham it is £294.38; for Sandwell £265.47; for Dudley £324.08; for Walsall £283.81; for Wolverhampton £299.95; for Coventry £325.87, and for Worcestershire £341.96. If the labour force survey was used, the area cost adjustment would be paid to Worcestershire and not to the authorities that receive it under the current system.
What other evidence is there to back up that argument? Average house prices are far higher in Worcestershire than they are in the conurbation and only high earners can afford them.
Mr. Peter Luff: I said that I would not intervene on the hon. Gentleman but I want to reinforce his point by referring to teachers' salaries. The average teacher's salary is £26,940 in Dudley and £26,710 in Gloucestershire, both areas that receive the area cost adjustment, but in Worcestershire it is £27,010. Teachers', salaries bear out what the hon. Gentleman said—that Worcestershire should receive the area cost adjustment.
Mr. Foster: I am most grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention. He and I do not always see eye to eye, but on this occasion we are united with other hon. Members in supporting Worcestershire's case. Although teachers' salaries on their own are not the silver bullet, they add to the weight of evidence for Worcestershire to receive the area cost adjustment.
More expensive house prices would be paid by higher earners. That makes sense. If we compare house prices in Worcestershire with those for the west midlands as a whole, we find that for the west midlands region the average price is £105,645, for Birmingham it is £98,070, for Dudley £89,901, for Sandwell £69,736, for Walsall £87,474, for Wolverhampton £75,691, for Coventry £85,297 and for Worcestershire £130,542. If we add to that the impact of the resource equalisation that took place this year, which reflects the council tax base, which in turn reflects house prices, we find that grant was allocated away from Worcestershire because it was deemed to be a wealthier area. The new earnings survey disadvantages Worcestershire, and the labour force survey better reflects the reality and experience of what is happening in the west midlands.
As a side issue, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister views Hereford and Worcester as the basis of the new earnings survey, despite the recent divorce that split the two counties again. Worcestershire has a natural tendency to look north to the west midlands conurbation rather than west to Herefordshire; Herefordshire is a lower-wage economy than

217WH
Worcestershire. Combining them merely lowers the average wage level, making it more difficult for Worcestershire to qualify for the area cost adjustment top-up. I ask the Minister to give me an assurance that in future Worcestershire will be treated separately from Herefordshire for the purposes of calculating area cost adjustment.
Apart from the flaws already highlighted in its calculation, area cost adjustment based on the new earnings survey is applied unfairly even in the west midlands conurbation. I accept that wage levels calculated by the new earnings survey are higher for workers in Birmingham, compared with those in Worcestershire; the same is true for Warwickshire and Gloucestershire. However, according to the new earnings survey, Dudley and Walsall have lower average wage levels than Worcestershire, yet they receive the same area cost adjustment top-up as Birmingham. They earn less, but they are treated as though they earn more. The wage levels in Sandwell are close to those in Worcestershire; yet Sandwell gets the area cost adjustment top-up and Worcestershire does not.
If the Minister were to take just two elements of the FSS formula for primary and secondary schools only, it would add up to some £7 million paid to local authorities, which, strictly speaking, do not earn it, even using the flawed logic of the ODPM's rules. In a former life I was employed to look at cost reduction programmes and I have a quick point for the Minister. He could stop paying £7 million to the authorities that do not strictly earn it: we will have £3.5 million in Worcestershire and his Department can keep the remainder to spend on other areas.
I know that many people view Worcestershire as a leafy and prosperous county, and the labour force survey suggests that it is, but the Minister may not be aware of some other disturbing facts. According to the index of deprivation produced by Oxford university and made available on the website of what was the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, in Worcester city five of the 12 electoral wards are in the bottom 25 per cent. of educational achievers. Rather like a 20 per cent. cut in spending proposed by some politicians, being deprived of the area cost adjustment, in contrast to our neighbours, will not help.
I looked for evidence that Birmingham, Gloucestershire, Warwickshire and Dudley found it difficult to recruit teachers, compared with Worcestershire. If that were the case, it would be manifested in higher pupil-teacher ratios. I have obtained the latest figures from January 2003, supplied by the Department for Education and Skills. The average secondary school pupil-teacher ratio for England is 17:1. The average ratio in the west midlands is 17:1, but Worcestershire has the ninth highest ratio in England at 18.1:1 compared with Birmingham at 16:1, Dudley at 16.9:1, Warwickshire at 17.1:1 and Gloucestershire at 16.8:1. The evidence shows the opposite of what the ODPM believes is happening. If recruitment is difficult, the figures suggest that it is harder in Worcestershire than anywhere else in the west midlands. Can the Minister explain why those named authorities have been given 2 per cent. more funding?
218WH
Local head teachers have raised their concerns about a brain drain of teaching staff from Worcestershire to the west midlands conurbation, which was a finding of their recent survey. With that in mind, will the Minister ask his colleagues in the DES to undertake specific research into the movements of teaching staff between local council areas in the west midlands to see precisely how the area cost adjustment is impacting upon recruitment and retention?
Being surrounded on three sides by local authorities that receive area cost adjustment means that staff will be encouraged to migrate away from Worcestershire, attracted by the higher pay levels that can be afforded elsewhere because of the area cost adjustment. In turn, that will widen the average earnings gap measured by the new earnings survey, which measures where people work and not where they live. A vicious cycle will commence in which Worcestershire will lose out. Teachers will be recruited into neighbouring Birmingham, for example, which means that, all other things being equal, the average wage of people working in Birmingham will rise. The gap will widen and when the area cost adjustment is calculated average wage levels will have gone up in Birmingham, which will therefore get a greater area cost adjustment, and so on.
I cannot accept that that is what the ODPM has in mind and I urge the Minister to consider these three options: first, changing from using the new earnings survey to the labour force survey; secondly, some form of taper for those areas that border recipients of the area cost adjustment, which would give Worcestershire some relief—in principle, by acknowledging the existence of fringe and non-fringe parts of south-east England, the ODPM has already partially accepted the logic of that approach—thirdly, using the west midlands region as the basis for calculating area cost adjustment, which would better reflect the realities of travel-to-work patterns. In the short term, that would give the county much-needed respite ahead of what I hope will be a more fundamental review of how the area cost adjustment is calculated.
The area cost adjustment calculation is fundamentally flawed and should be reviewed urgently ahead of next year's settlement. As applied now, it produces perverse results and will in future years make the funding gap worse. Worcestershire is surrounded on three sides by areas receiving area cost adjustment and is therefore disadvantaged more than most. Despite welcome increases in resources, the system used by the ODPM has created a vicious cycle, which, if it is left unchecked, will act against my constituents. I know that the Department wants a period of stability, but it must surely be concerned about the adverse impacts that I have described today.
I do not expect the Minister to make a decision today, but I hope that he will go away and examine what can be done for Worcestershire in the light of one year's experience of the new funding system. I would then like to bring a delegation from the county to meet him, perhaps in September, to examine what progress has been made.
11.19 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Phil Hope): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster)

219WH
on securing the debate, which has given us the opportunity to discuss the area cost adjustment. I also want him to know that I was not guilty of starting the fire alarm. I am grateful that my first Westminster Hall debate will be a detailed analysis of the complexities of local government finance.
The Government have high aspirations for local government. We continue to match those aspirations with proper investment, as demonstrated by the generous local government settlement that we announced in February. We have also introduced a new funding formula for local government following an extensive review that involved local and central Government.
However, as my hon. Friend illustrated powerfully, the area cost adjustment remains an issue that engenders debate. The area cost adjustment is the element of the local government funding formula that reflects the cost of recruiting and retaining staff in many areas of England and Wales. There has always been controversy about how it is calculated and the geography to which it is applied, and there have been numerous attempts to find a better solution.
I shall return to those difficult issues shortly. First, I shall put the debate in a wider context by referring to our decisions on the local government financial settlement. It is worth reminding hon. Members of the good increases in grant that we have been able to provide to local authorities generally. This year's settlement provides an overall increase in general grant of 5.9 per cent. and has allowed us, for the first time ever, to ensure that all local authorities receive a grant increase that is at least above the rate of inflation. The settlement has enabled us to continue the considerable investment that we have been making in local government since we took office. That investment has meant a real-terms increase in grant of 25 per cent. since 1997. That compares, as I think my hon. Friend acknowledged, with the 7 per cent. real-terms cut in grant that councils saw in the last four years of the previous Government.
None the less, some local authorities have expressed concern, as my hon. Friend has, about the pressures that they face this year. I understand those pressures and am aware that many councils still face difficulties. However, the increase in total Government grant, including special and specific grants, has been £3.8 billion—a cash increase of 8 per cent. this year.
Authorities in Worcestershire have benefited from those extra resources. Worcestershire county council received a grant increase of £15.5 million, or 6 per cent., which is above the average for county councils. Two district councils in the area received grant increases at the 12.5 per cent. ceiling that was set for that type of authority, and one benefited from our guarantee of a grant increase at least above the rate of inflation. I think that my hon. Friend would agree that that is not an ungenerous result for his area.
Since taking office in 1997, we have wanted to ensure that councils have the funds to deliver better services in line with their priorities. We were concerned that the former standard spending assessment system was overcomplicated and unintelligible to local government and the general public, particularly in the case of education, about which my hon. Friend spoke so eloquently. We concluded that that could not be good for central-local
220WH
relations or local democracy and accountability, so we began the difficult process of formula review. That review dates from September 2000 and the Green Paper entitled "Modernising Local Government Finance", which asked for views on the basic form of the system. Following an extensive period of development and consultation, we have a new formula that is a significant improvement on the SSA system.
One consistent message, to which my hon. Friend alluded, was that local government wanted more stability and more predictability in funding levels so that it could concentrate on medium and long-term planning for improved service delivery.
Miss Julie Kirkbride: Will the Minister give way?
Phil Hope: Yes, but in case the hon. Lady's question is specifically on the area cost adjustment, let me say that I am about to discuss that.
Miss Kirkbride: I congratulate the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) on the excellent case that he put to the Minister. I am sure that the Minister will consider it in the fullness of time. He rightly points out that his Government were elected with a view to changing local government funding and making it fairer. However, the simple fact is that it is not fairer for children in Worcestershire, and the situation is getting worse. The area cost adjustment, which I am pleased to learn the Minister is about to deal with, could make all the difference to children in Worcestershire getting a fair crack of the whip.
Phil Hope: I thank the hon. Lady for that comment. In a couple of years' time, it will be interesting to debate the fairness of increasing investment in local services as opposed to cutting them, as the Conservative party wants to, by 20 per cent.
Let me turn to the area cost adjustment. Over the years, numerous research projects have considered whether a solution can be found to the thorny question of compensating authorities in high-wage areas. We have conducted research openly, and local government has had every opportunity to scrutinise and debate those projects. The most recent example of that is the formula review subgroup, which was set up in spring 2001 to take forward work on reforming the local government grant distribution formulae. Its membership was drawn widely from central and local government. The aim was to allow all interested parties to contribute to the debate. The subgroup met on many occasions and 26 papers on the area cost adjustment alone were tabled by both central and local government. That is all available on the Local Government Association website. In the summer of 2002, we entered into a consultation on options for the new funding formula. In all, five area cost adjustment options were consulted on. Comments on those options were received from a wide range of stakeholders, including Worcestershire county council.
During the formula review, two main ideas for reforming the area cost adjustment were considered: the specific costs approach and the approach based on work by Professor Robert Elliott. The specific costs approach argues that the area cost adjustment should be based only

221WH
on what authorities in high-wage areas already pay their staff over and above national pay scales. I know that is not what my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester has been talking about this morning. Under that system, payments that are easily measured, such as London weighting or the travel and housing supplements that some workers receive, do not reflect all the costs of being an employer in a high-cost area.
Grade drift or quality drift, by which I mean hard-pressed councils employing less experienced staff in order to fill a post, or moving people up pay scales by inflating their responsibilities, are difficult to put a cost to, as are the increased benefits offered to attract staff, such as more generous leave entitlements. In addition, councils in high-wage areas have higher non-pay costs as a result of their difficulty in recruiting and retaining staff. Rapid staff turnover and problems filling vacancies translate into increased agency fees, higher advertising costs and more staff training. Finally, if we based the area cost adjustment on what councils paid last year to recruit and retain staff, we would create an incentive to bump up the budget this year in order to obtain more grant next year. That would clearly be unacceptable.
For all those reasons, the specific costs approach was not taken forward. The second approach explored was the Elliott approach. Indeed that approach, researched by an independent review in 1997, forms the basis of the present area cost adjustment. Under that approach, detailed information from the whole labour market, together with information about employees, is used to establish local labour cost factors. Those reflect how much more, or less, people in one area are paid in comparison to another, purely as a result of local area characteristics.
We use new earnings survey data as the basis of that calculation for many reasons, including the fact that it is the largest source of information on wage levels across the United Kingdom, and the fact that it contains much detailed information on all workers who take part, such as their industry and occupation, their age, sex, and whether they are a full-time or part-time worker and in what area they work.
Although the labour force survey to which my hon. Friend referred contains much the same information, we do not use it in our area cost adjustment calculations. That is because the labour force survey is much smaller than the new earnings survey. We look at wages where people work because we want to gauge wage pressures in the labour market in which the local authority competes. We take account of wage pressures that councils face measured through local wages because councils are competing in that local labour market. Commuters' wage pressures are already accounted for in the local going rate. The Elliott approach is an enormous improvement on the old area cost adjustment, which, as my hon. Friend knows, used crude average wages calculated for a handful of occupations in crude concentric circles around London, to take account of increased wage costs.
One of the most frequently raised questions in the ACA debate concerns geography—by that I mean which authorities receive an adjustment and where the boundary lines are drawn. As my hon. Friend has said, some authorities, such as Worcestershire, have complained about being grouped into their pre-reorganisation
222WH
counties for the calculation of the ACA. Worcestershire has also complained that it is just outside the boundary for the west midlands ACA area and faces the same wage pressures as its better-off neighbours, a point made by my hon. Friend this morning.
First, it is fair to say that the new geography for the area cost adjustment is a vast improvement on the old. Until this year, no council outside the south-east of England received an area cost adjustment, no matter how high its wage increases. Authorities within the south-east received an adjustment calculated using a very crude geographic approach using concentric rings radiating out of London, which did not reflect the geography of underlying wage pressures. When calculating the area cost adjustment now, we look at wage pressures throughout England and Wales. We have split the counties bordering London into fringe and non-fringe areas, reflecting the higher wage pressures that are associated with proximity to London. In that way, we have extended the coverage of the area cost adjustment beyond the artificial confines of the south-east to areas such as Cambridgeshire, the west midlands and Warwickshire, whose wage pressures previously went unrecognised.
I understand that, as my hon. Friend said, Worcestershire would like us to calculate an area cost adjustment value for it alone, instead of combining Worcestershire with Herefordshire. However, the difficulty is that in reforming area cost adjustments we have had to strike a balance between calculating the ACA on an ever-finer geography and producing factors for the formula that are reliable and stable over time.
The new earnings survey is the biggest wage survey in the country, but with a very fine geography its sample sizes can be quite low and the area cost adjustment factors in those areas can jump around unacceptably from year to year as a result of people moving into or out of the survey in that area. However, it is worth noting that if we had treated Worcestershire as an area cost adjustment area in its own right in the most recent 2003–04 local government finance settlement, it would not have received a higher area cost adjustment. Wages in Worcestershire are simply not high enough to lift it out of the lower limit floor mechanism within the ACA. It makes no difference whether Worcestershire is grouped with Herefordshire because its area cost adjustment remains unchanged. Competition from firms in higher-wage labour markets is already taken into account in the wage evidence that we use to calculate the area cost adjustment.
I understand my hon. Friend's concerns, particularly about funding education in Worcestershire. However, it is worth noting that Worcestershire received a 6 per cent. increase in its education formula spending. We have worked hard to improve the local government funding formula. I know that my hon. Friend would like to have a meeting with me and I am happy to respond positively to his request to discuss those matters further, but we are keen to maintain stability for local government funding for the next three years. I hope that he appreciates the importance of that for local government generally.
11.31 am
Sitting suspended until Two o'clock.

Regional Government (North-West)
2 pm
Mr. George Osborne rose—
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I and a number of colleagues were almost late for this debate because we now have to take a tortuous route to this Chamber. There did not seem to be a lot of activity in Westminster Hall, so I wondered why the ordinary route for Members of Parliament should be closed. Could you clarify with the authorities what route we should take and could some clear signs be put up to show how we are supposed to go round the lift to get here?
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr. Frank Cook): I shall do my best to satisfy the hon. Gentleman's curiosity, having had a similar experience this morning. However, having had considerable experience on construction sites and being conscious of health and safety requirements, I know that it is important that potentially hazardous areas be rendered inaccessible to Members. The incident that caused attention to the roof of Westminster Hall happened some time ago and there has been activity for some time. The route is fairly well marked and I found it easy to follow. I am sure that other Members who were here before me this afternoon also found it easy.
Mr. Osborne: I was able to find my way here, so the debate can begin.
I welcome this early parliamentary opportunity to discuss in greater detail the Government's proposed referendum on regional government in the north-west. Given that the Deputy Prime Minister told us all that there was a high level of interest in the north-west region in his proposals, I am sure that the Minister, who is new to his job, is brimming with confidence that our every word will be followed in the living rooms and workplaces of the north-west today. I wish that were so, but, sadly and as we all know, the truth is that there is no enthusiasm or excitement and precious little interest in the referendum in the north-west or anywhere else in England.
Many of us suspected that, but we now know for certain because the Government have helpfully provided us with the document, "Your Region, Your Say", which tells us just how uninterested people really are. Of the 7 million people in the north-west who were asked whether they wanted a referendum on regional government, just 3,947 responded, more than 43 per cent. of whom said no. In fact, just 0.03 of 1 per cent. said yes. That is three in every 10,000 and that is what the Deputy Prime Minister described last week as
"significant and widespread interest in holding a referendum".—[Official Report, 16 June 2003; Vol. 407, c. 22.]
His response reminds me of the East German Government who said after one bad election result that they needed to elect a new people.
The hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth)—he is not present today, but I spoke to him before this debate and have a high regard for him—spoke for many of us when he said of the statement last week that
224WH
"any close analysis of the consultation exercise would reveal that regional government is a preoccupation of the nomenklatura rather than the people—certainly the people in the north-west".—[Official Report, 16 June 2003; Vol. 407, c. 30.]
Mrs. Louise Ellman: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in Merseyside, more than 80 per cent. of those who replied were in favour of a referendum and that not a single local authority in the whole of Merseyside supports the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East?
Mr. Osborne: Perhaps the hon. Lady could help me by telling me how many people in the Merseyside area responded, and what proportion that was of the total number of people who were able to respond in the Merseyside region. I suspect that that number was extremely low.
Mr. Andrew Miller: MORI has conducted a significant poll. There are weaknesses in any sampling technique used in polling, but those represent only plus or minus a few per cent. What are the weaknesses in the MORI poll methodology that lead the hon. Gentleman to believe that it was wildly wrong in its assessment?
Mr. Osborne: I made a previous career out of pointing out weaknesses in MORI polling, although as the general opinion polls change I have become less keen on that line. In Cheshire, the county in which the hon. Gentleman sits as a Member of Parliament, more than 80 per cent. of the people who responded said no to the proposal—in fact, the overwhelming number of replies were from Cheshire. One is therefore left wondering whether there was any point to that costly consultation charade, if the Government had no intention of paying attention to the result. However, that is now in the past, because the referendum will take place next year, whether we like it or not. It is therefore important to ask the Government some basic questions about that referendum and what is being offered to the people of the north-west.
The first thing that we need to establish is the ground rules for the referendum. Last week, the Deputy Prime Minister said that it would be held "next autumn." That could mean any time from September to December, if one were to stretch autumn a little. The boundary commission has already written to Members of Parliament in the north-west, saying that it plans to complete its work by 25 May 2004. Can the Minister give us a similarly precise view on when the referendum will be held? I assume that the civil service has already pencilled in a day in the Minister's diary, so why does he not tell us what that day is, either now or in his response at the end of the debate?
As part of establishing the ground rules, could the Minister also tell us something about the framework within which the "yes" and "no" campaigns in the referendum will operate? Does he know what the spending limits for the different campaigns will be? Moreover, since we now have a rough idea of when the referendum will take place, can the Minister tell us whether those spending limits are now in operation and, if not, when they come into force? Will they come into

225WH
force when he tells us the date of the referendum? What will be the role of central and local government in the campaign? Will the Government be using taxpayers' money to promote the "yes" campaign and, if so, will local authorities be able to use such money to promote a "no" campaign? That last question will be of interest to many people.
There is also the question of turnout. The Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Act 2003 does not specify a minimum threshold for turnout, because the Government are not that stupid. However, the Minister for Local Government, Regional Governance and Fire said that if the turnout were "derisory", the Government would not proceed with an elected assembly even if the vote were "yes". Even the most ardent supporters of regional government are not expecting a high turnout in the referendum, so the question of what is "derisory" becomes very important. Would 10 per cent.—or 15 per cent.—be considered "derisory"? It is in the Government's own interests to set the hurdle now to avoid argument and controversy when the referendum takes place.
That brings me to the second point that I wish to raise today: the role of the existing north-west regional assembly. As the Minister may be aware, considerable concern has been expressed by all parties about the way in which that assembly has engaged in the debate so far. Last year, it conducted what it called
"a special … enquiry looking at the views of people in the North West about the future of our region."
It then published "Soundings", a series of glossy leaflets—I assure hon. Members that they were glossy, although I have only photocopies to hand—on the results of the inquiry.
Even the assembly's supporters would be hard pushed to call that "special enquiry" a model of balance. It was more like reading reports of tractor production in the Urals. I shall read some examples of its investigative journalism. For example, a splash headline screams, "Economic and Social Partners back directly Elected Assembly." However, when I investigated further, I found that the economic partners had said that regional assemblies were more of a distraction than a help. That, however, is not reported. Moreover, when the CBI in the north-west came out against regional government, the headline in the north-west regional assembly's supposedly impartial document was, "CBI's London Focus Just Won't Wash in the North West." The document continues:
"Parochial and provincial—that was the judgement of the North-West Regional Assembly—not on the regions, but on the London-centric views expressed by the CBI."
Then we have my favourite, "Accountants back assembly"—an exciting story until I discovered that it was based on a poll of 69 chartered accountants. The important thing to note is that all this propaganda has been paid for out of public funds. Labour-run Lancashire county council is so concerned that it has withdrawn funding from the north-west regional assembly on the grounds that it is illegally spending taxpayers' money. The council leader said:
226WH
"To continue our funding would leave us in a vulnerable position and the legal position is clear—it is an incorrect use of public money to run a campaign on what amounts to a political issue."
Mr. Miller: Could the hon. Gentleman tell us who funded Cheshire county council's anti campaign?
Mr. Osborne: Local authorities of all political persuasions made their views clear. The point is that the north-west regional assembly is prohibited from engaging in this sort of activity.
I wrote to the Minister's predecessor, the former Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie), to express my concern. In his reply on 14 March, he confirmed what I just told the hon. Gentleman:
"The Government has spelled out to Regional Assemblies the distinction between assessing the regional appetite for a referendum and campaigning for an elected regional assembly … Following suggestions in the House that this distinction had not been observed, the Government wrote to the leader of the North West Regional Assembly asking for reassurance that this was not the case. That assurance has been forthcoming."
Where is that assurance? I should like to know why the Minister believes that he has been assured and why Lancashire county council believes that it has not.
If the Government are not to be the custodians of probity on this issue, we must turn to other organisations. I wrote to the Comptroller and Auditor General, and received a reply late last week that makes it clear that the National Audit Office will now investigate this. My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) wrote to the Audit Commission, from which he received a similar assurance. We may receive answers, but it is a shame that we must turn to those organisations.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: Is my hon. Friend aware of comments by David Jennings, the district auditor. In a telephone conversation in May 2003, he said:
"So far as I can see, some of the publicity issued by NEA could be seen to be contravening Part II of the Local Government Act 1986 and DoE Circular 20/88 Code of Recommended Practice on Local Authority Publicity".
Mr. Osborne: I saw that comment, which confirms my concerns. I suspect that this is one of those things that will play out in the months and years ahead as steamroller organisations, such as the Audit Commission and the National Audit Office, do their job.
I ask the Minister to confirm today that the northwest regional assembly can have no role in promoting one side or the other in the forthcoming campaign. Furthermore, could he give us the commitment that if the people of the north-west vote no in the referendum, we can get rid of this unloved and unwanted north-west regional assembly once and for all?
The third area that I want to discuss is the cost and the powers of the proposed elected regional assembly. The Government say that they will publish a draft Bill that sets out the powers and functions of the assemblies before people are asked to vote for them. However, the preamble that could appear on the ballot paper has already been written into legislation. It states:

227WH
"You can help to decide whether there should be an elected assembly in the north-west region. An assembly would be responsible for a range of activities that are currently carried out mainly by central government bodies".
I emphasise the latter part of that sentence:
"carried out mainly by central government bodies".
We have seen precious little evidence that that is the case. Indeed, when the hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Hepburn) asked the Deputy Prime Minister last week to give an assurance that no powers would be transferred to regional assemblies from existing metropolitan authorities, he replied:
"My hon. Friend must be aware, if he considers the current housing strategy, that in some cases we are transferring powers—from counties, for example. We have to make a judgment and the Bill will contain exact provisions for what we will do".—[Official Report, 16 June 2003; Vol. 407, c. 39.]
That answer confirms what many of us, including the Local Government Association, have feared all along: when it comes to the crunch, Whitehall will not give up real powers to these assemblies, and such powers that they have will come from local government. In short, it will be an act of centralisation not devolution.
If the Bill's exact provisions make it clear that several functions that local authorities currently perform will be transferred to regional assemblies, will the Minister assure us that that will be spelt out to people, and that there will be no misleading statement on the ballot paper that says that
"the … assembly would be responsible for a range of activities that are currently carried out mainly by central government bodies"?
Turning from power to money, will the costs of elected regional government also be spelled out to people before they cast their vote? In a comprehensive and candid letter written to me last year, the Minister's predecessor, the hon. Member for Shipley, told me about the likely cost of establishing and running an elected regional assembly in the north-west. He estimated that it would cost up to £30 million to set up the assembly, which I understand central Government will pay, and about £25 million a year to run it. He says that £5 million of those running costs would be directly offset by staff transferring from other bodies such as the Government office for the north-west, but that the remaining £20 million would be new expenditure arising each year from
"the costs of staff to support assembly members, pay of the members, accommodation costs and provision for assembly elections".
In other words, £20 million of new money will have to be found to pay for the new politicians.
If we accept for one moment that the Government estimate is correct, where will that £20 million come from? The hon. Member for Shipley said in his letter to me:
"Most of these running costs will be met from the assembly's general government grant."
However, the Minister of State for Housing, Planning and Regeneration, said:
"There will be no new powers, no new money"
for regional assemblies. There will simply be
"a different way of scrutinising the vast amounts of government expenditure".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 28 April 2003; Vol. 647, c. 482.]
228WH
Let us get this straight, so that it is clear to everyone. The £20 million running costs of the assembly will mostly be met by general government grant, but there will be no new money in that grant to pay for it. In other words, it will come from existing money going to the north-west. That is not money currently being spent on administration: the Government have already subtracted £5 million to take account of that. It is £20 million that is currently being spent on other things such as public services, which will now be spent on politicians.
Not all the money will come from general government grant. The previous Minister also wrote to me saying:
"We believe that people in any region with an elected assembly should make some contribution towards its running costs. The contribution of council taxpayers to the running costs of an assembly would be equivalent to around 5 pence per week for a Band D council taxpayer".
That 5p precept on council tax bills is separate from the power being given to the regional assembly to raise its own money and increase its own taxes. Will that precept to pay for the administration be set by central Government, taking into account the grant that they give in any year? Will the assembly have any say in what the precept will be?
The previous Minister also mentioned in his letter to me accommodation costs, an innocuous phrase, but one that should set the alarm bells ringing for anyone who has followed events in Scotland and Wales since devolution. We all know that the new Scottish Parliament building will cost 10 times what the people of Scotland were told it would before their referendum. Have the Government made any provision for a new building for an elected north-west regional assembly? Will that be a decision for the assembly to take? Where will it sit to begin with, if it decides to have a new building?
The cost of all the new regional politicians—their staff, their accommodation, their pensions and their salaries—will be paid for by extra taxes and money being spent on other things in the north-west. Will that be spelled out to people before they are asked to vote for it? What will the cost be of the local government reorganisation that takes place? As my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) continually points out to us, the one-off cost of abolishing Humberside county council was £53 million. What is the estimated cost of abolishing Cheshire, Lancashire and Cumbria? Cheshire county council reckons that its costs alone will be £60 million. Do the Government agree? What about the rest of the region? Will local taxpayers have to foot the bill? The Government must have done their sums, so perhaps the Minister can tell us today what they are today.
I wish finally to ask the Minister about the assembly's democratic accountability. The Government say that a north-west regional assembly will bring government closer to the people, but will the Minister confirm that the county of Cheshire may have just two representatives in the assembly, each representing about a third of a million people? No wonder an organisation such as the National Farmers Union has warned today:
"There is every reason for the farming and rural community to fear that its voice will be swamped".
I do not know whether the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer) will raise again a point that he raised earlier. Will the electoral system

229WH
being considered almost guarantee, as he fears, the British National party representative a place on the regional assembly? It is something that I suspect no member of the Committee would want to see, and I urge the Minister to take a hard look at that problem.
When the people whom I represent are asked where they come from they say Knutsford or Wilmslow, or they may say Cheshire. If they are abroad, they may say England or Britain. However, none of them would ever say that they were from the north-west administrative region. I suspect that the same is true of the people represented by other hon. Members here today: they are Mancunians, Liverpudlians, Lancastrians or Cumbrians, not north-westerners.
Mrs. Ellman: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that a recent MORI poll showed that in fact there was over 90 per cent. identification of north-west people with their region?
Mr. Osborne: Given that the people of Cumbria cannot even decide whether they are in the north-west or the north-east, I do not think that those polls are entirely reliable. In the next couple of years, we will be happy to consider opinion polls and issues such as trust and voting intention, but all the evidence that I have seen shows that people do not identify themselves as north-westerners. The north-west administrative region exists only on maps in Whitehall. It does not exist in the hearts and minds of the people who live in the north-west, and it is foolish, if not dangerous, to build political structures on the shifting sands of administrative convenience.
Government, local and national, should be rooted in the existing identities and loyalties of people, and those loyalties are clear. The loyalty of the people whom I represent is to the county of Cheshire—one of the oldest political identities in the western world. The loyalty of other people in the north-west is to cities such as Manchester or Liverpool. If we care about bringing government closer to people, we should be taking powers from Whitehall and giving them to county councils and city councils, not creating a costly, bureaucratic and undemocratic new tier of regional government.
The people in the north-west did not ask for a referendum on regional government, but they are going to get one. They deserve to know in advance how much that new talking shop for politicians will cost, who will pay for it, where it will get its powers from, how the referendum campaigns will be paid for, how we will prevent the BNP from getting a seat, whether the existing north-west regional assembly will survive a no vote, what counts as a derisory turnout and when the polling day is. We expect some answers from the Government today.
I shall end, a little unusually, with an appeal to my own party. I know how passionately opposed most Conservatives are to regional government in the north-west, and we could be tempted to fight that battle alone, but that would be a huge mistake. We must build as broad a coalition of support as possible. We have powerful allies in other political parties, especially in the
230WH
north-west Labour party. We must draw together those people, who may oppose the Government's plans for their own perfectly legitimate reasons with which we do not agree. Some may feel that the plans do not go far enough. That is not important. We are being asked to vote on the Government's plans as put before the people.
We must bring trade unions, businesses, voluntary groups and local councils together in that referendum coalition. We must share platforms and make common cause, as I did the other day with a Liverpool Labour MP and a Liberal Democrat parliamentary candidate. We have the arguments on our side. Our opponents have to persuade people in the north-west to vote for more politicians, higher taxes, more bureaucracy, less accountability and the abolition of our counties. If we cannot win that campaign, I do not know what campaign we can win.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chair already has six firm notifications of a desire to contribute to the debate, to which I see a further two have been added. I remind hon. Members that it is customary practice in a 90-minute debate to commence the first of the three winding-up speeches 30 minutes before termination of the debate. That means that we have 37 minutes left for open discussion. I appeal to all hon. Members seeking to participate actively to bear that time constraint in mind when they make their comments, which should be clear and pertinent. I hope that hon. Members will also consider that time constraint when making or accepting interventions.
2.23 pm
Mr. Graham Stringer: I congratulate the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) on securing time for this important debate about the referendum for a regional assembly in the north-west. I do not know whether he has done the arithmetic, but present at the debate are about a quarter of 1 per cent. of all hon. Members in the House of Commons, which is a considerably higher turnout than that for the response to the consultation in the north-west and anywhere that that took place.
I will try to curtail my remarks, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I should like to refer back to the 2001 Labour party manifesto. I guess that most people do not read that very often, but I looked it up this morning and it was quite interesting. It states:
"In 1997 we said that provision should be made for directly elected regional Government to go ahead in regions where people decided in a referendum to support it and where predominantly unitary local Government is established. This remains our commitment."
It was that commitment in the 2001 election manifesto that led to the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Act 2003. That is an imperfect translation of the manifesto commitment, which talked about regional government and did not talk about going out and testing the water. It referred to a commitment.
We have had a rather bizarre exercise in which people were asked whether they thought other people were interested in a regional assembly. It was truly pathetic to

231WH
get about 4,000 responses—both for and against—in the north-west when we have had the regional assembly spending money in an ultra vires fashion. The Government have a responsibility to take more action than they have done, and I have written to Ministers about that. Money has clearly been spent unlawfully on campaigning. It should not be left to other hon. Members to bring in accounting officers to deal with that.
With all that activity and hon. Members from different parties campaigning in favour, all we got were 4,000 responses: 2,200 in favour and 1,700 against. That is not any basis on which to hold a referendum in the north-west. The referendum is taking place, as was said repeatedly in the Committee of the Bill that became the 2003 Act, because my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister believes he can win referendums in the north-west, the north-east and Yorkshire and Humberside. I think that he is wrong. When the 6 million people in the north-west of England understand what is being offered to them, they will reject it.
I think I have the answer to some of the questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) about why opinion polls give the answers they do. People have a strong distrust and dislike of the south-east in the north-west. They believe that they do not get a fair deal from central Government in London. We should get a fair deal. I share that feeling with many of my constituents, but that is not reflected in what we are getting. First of all, what is wrong, Mr. Cook—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I would be remiss in my duties were I not to remind the House that when it took the decision to hold sittings here it decided that the occupant of this Chair should be referred to as Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Stringer: I do apologise, Mr. Cook. [Interruption.] I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You are labelled as such, as well.
I was explaining what was wrong with what is proposed. I return to my campaign against the abolition of the Greater Manchester county council between 1983 and 1985. In Greater Manchester we would have liked a referendum on that issue, and my guess is that people would have voted to keep the county council at that stage. We were not given that choice. None of us campaigning against that abolition asked for the people of Cheshire, Lancashire or anywhere else to have a say on it.
Although the Bill was improved so that there is now a choice on the ballot paper between two different forms of local government reorganisation where there are two tiers of local government, the effective decision on how 42 councils will be changed—whether they will be abolished or amalgamated—will he taken by the 60 per cent. of the people who live in unitary authorities. I should have thought that it was wrong in 1984 to give people outside the area a definitive say in whether local government was reorganised, and it is wrong in 2003. That is wrong in principle, but that point probably will not persuade a lot of people because it is principled, democratic argument.
Mr. Miller: If my hon. Friend is going to go back in history, will he go as far as to suggest that the parts of
232WH
Cheshire that are now in Greater Manchester should be returned and decisions taken on that basis? Surely that is a ridiculous argument.
Mr. Stringer: I do not think it is a ridiculous argument; it is about abolishing authorities. The major local government reorganisation in 1972 created a uniform system of two tiers throughout the country. Although some smaller authorities disappeared, there was a consensus between both parties that there should be changes. Most of us in the Labour party objected to the abolition of the GMC; we would not have wanted people outside the area to vote on a proposal that would have the potential, effectively, to abolish councils in Cumbria, Lancashire and Cheshire. That is wrong, and it is wrong for the other 60 per cent. of people—
Mr. Neil Turner rose—
Mr. Stringer: I am mindful of your advice on the matter, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I will give way one more time.
Mr. Turner: Does my hon. Friend agree that those of us in the Labour party who campaigned against the abolition of the GMC campaigned against how it was being abolished, not in favour of the structure of the GMC? In 1972–74, when the measure was being introduced, we argued for regional government and unitary authorities throughout the country.
Mr. Stringer: I accept what my hon. Friend says, but my point was about who should have had a say in whether the county was abolished, not about the alternatives to abolition at the time.
The next issue, which will interest people, is whether the formation of an elected regional assembly will put right the wrongs caused by the country's huge and growing regional disparities. Will there be money in it? It is interesting to compare the White Paper that set up the Scottish Parliament with the present White Paper and Ministers' comments on it. The White Paper on the Scottish Parliament guaranteed that the Barnett formula, which puts lots of money into Scotland, would continue.
There is no such guarantee in this White Paper, which I shall quote again for the record. Ministers have stated that regional assemblies will not get preferential treatment, and that funding will be the same as for those without them; there will be no extra money. My constituents will not be happy about that; they believe we should get more money, and that 80 per cent. of the money in the transport budget should not be spent in London. There is no guarantee that there will be a redistribution of civil servants; there are more civil servants in the south-east now than there were in 1997, but fewer in every other region. That is wrong.
People in the north-west will not be happy when they realise that a proposal that is supposed to bring elected representatives closer to them will mean one or two elected representatives for the entire city of Manchester. That will not bring the representatives closer to the electorate; it will take them farther away. People with whom I have debated the matter in the Labour party and elsewhere are shocked that there will be so few

233WH
representatives and that the elections will be by a system of proportional representation. That will almost certainly guarantee that several small minority and extremist parties will be represented on the regional assembly. It is possible that the BNP and other extreme bodies may hold the balance of power.
Mrs. Ellman: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Stringer: Yes, for the last time.
Mrs. Ellman: Does the drift of my hon. Friend's comments mean that if the assembly was much larger and the voting system was different he would support it?
Mr. Stringer: No. If my hon. Friend had been listening she would know that my argument is not just about the election system, which is bad, but the fact that an elected regional assembly would give no added value. Even if it were 10 times as large, it would not bring extra resources to people in the north-west. The key issue is whether the new body would make us wealthier and improve the north-west. The simple answer is no.
We do not know precisely what functions the new elected regional assembly will have because we do not have details about its structure, which is a mistake in the run-up to what is likely to be a major campaign. Let us consider what the regional assembly is likely to deal with: transport, housing, economic development, and planning. Those functions have traditionally been part of local government and should stay part of it. The change would represent a centralisation and would not bring government closer to the people.
If an elected regional assembly were to go ahead—I hope that it will not and I will campaign to stop it—it would be likely to take government further away from people. It is—I suspect that this is why the Liberals are so keen on it—anti-Manchester and anti every single unitary authority. Most of the unitary authorities that get by carrying out the functions that they have at present do not have Liberal majorities. On a body that will never be controlled by one political party, the Liberals will be given an interest in all the different districts and cities and will interfere. The assembly will make governing Liverpool, Manchester, the Wirral and Salford that bit more difficult, because when it comes to really difficult decisions such as whether to bid for the Commonwealth games or whether to have a second runway at Manchester airport—the most important economic decision taken in the north-west—it will be difficult to achieve consensus across a body with so many political parties and so many different interests.
Mr. George Howarth: I will not take up much time because I was not present at the beginning—I had other pressing engagements elsewhere. Does my hon. Friend agree that the new entente cordiale between Manchester and many of us on Merseyside is based on the very principles that he has just been setting out? Does he also accept that people do not identify themselves as being from the north-west, which is just a point on the compass? People identify with towns, villages and cities.
Mr. Stringer: I very much agree with that last point. If we had an elected regional assembly, we would get
234WH
lowest common denominator politics that would not concentrate resources where they are most likely to be beneficial to the region. That is what happened when it came to the second runway at Manchester airport. The region split. That is most likely to happen in relation to big decisions in future. Those big decisions—whether they are about ports in Liverpool or something in Preston or Manchester—are better taken by local authorities and ratified or otherwise by central Government. A region would get in the way of that.
Is an elected regional assembly a step forward? Will it be helpful in putting right the regional disparities from which we all suffer? No, it will not. I have heard the argument that we must go for an elected regional assembly or there will be nothing else on offer that will help to change those regional disparities. That is not the case. This is a step backwards. It is likely to make the north-west less economically powerful and to move elected representatives further from the people. It is altogether a bad idea.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker:Order. There are only 22 minutes left. I appeal to right hon. and hon. Members to be considerate of their colleagues' need to participate.
2.38 pm
Mr. Michael Jack: I do not disagree with the general thrust of either of the two speeches that we have heard so far. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) on the elegant way in which he summarised the key arguments. The results of the soundings exercise follow from a false premise. The false premise was that those who were invited to take part did not know all the things that are now emerging about—
2.39 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
2.53 pm
On resuming—
Mr Jack: I was arguing that the vote on the soundings exercise was based on a false premise. I suspect that if people had been fully informed of all the facts, they would have been even less in favour and more against. The number is interesting and represents around 5 per cent. of the people who go to watch Manchester United at Old Trafford. That tiny tail has wagged the dog of the whole Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. I have received no letters in favour in my constituency postbag and there has been no campaign in favour. People have no desire for and I can find no organisations that want another unnecessary layer of regional government.
Mr. Cook—
Sir Nicholas Winterton: Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Jack: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I apologise.
The proposition shows the Government's arrogance in thinking that this is the only show in town. I am aware that the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton,

235WH
East (Mr. Howarth) has ideas about some form of city representative government for Merseyside and other hon. Members may have their own models. In a longer debate, I would like to argue for a Select Committee of the House for the north-west to which we could summon witnesses and discuss matters. After all, we are accountable individuals.
There may even be a third way—something that was once popular. One could examine mechanisms to make the existing structures, such as the Northwest Development Agency, work more closely together. None of those ideas is available. The only show in town is an elected regional assembly. I believe in choice and diversity, and the Government were wrong in not allowing a debate about better ways of running the north-west of England before they settled on one model, which is beloved by nobody.
One of my worries is the effect that the proposals will have on local government. Examining the guidance issued with the boundary committee's work, I am confused about the precise objectives. I should be grateful if the Minister would try to enlighten us on the preferred alternative structure for local government, because it has not been thought through properly.
The document shows that the committee must take two models into account:
"existing district council functions being carried out by larger local government units including as appropriate a unit of a size comparable to the existing county council",
which would mean reconstituting county councils, or
"county functions being undertaken by smaller units but at least of a size that, on the basis of current experience of English local government, would have the capacity to deliver effectively the full range of county functions".
The options are vague and woolly. There is no sense that local government is being allowed to work out its own salvation. The presumption is that the replacement for what we have got must, by definition, be bigger units. The idea that, for example, authorities might co-operate in common purpose is not seemingly an option.
I asked our new council leader in Fylde what he had been told.
Mr. Neil Turner: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Jack: I do not want to give way because I shall finish in a few seconds to give others a chance to speak.
My local council leader was given the impression that the organisation in the Fylde area was almost a done deal. He thought that Fylde would be merged with either Blackpool or Wyre or that a Greater Lancashire authority would be formed. There were only two models. Is that "choice" and "diversity"? Is that listening to the people? Is that providing better local government? We have not had a debate in which all those issues, which are central to the effectiveness of a referendum, can be decided. It is fundamentally wrong that the solution before us, with which I disagree, is the only show in town.
Regional government is not required. At a recent meeting, the Central and West Lancashire Chamber of Commerce lobbied Members from my part of the world. It said:
236WH
"We are uneasy about the use of referenda and believe that the Government will not ask the question until it is sure it will get the answer that it wants —'manipulating the outcome'."
It has got that in one. The Government have manipulated the outcome by offering one choice. They are trying to fix how the boundary committee does its work, which is no choice, and they have a minority interest in the north-west. There are many other models, which we should debate. We should not regard the proposal as the only show in town.
2.58 pm
Mr. Neil Turner: I do not understand why Conservative Members are so opposed to elected regional assemblies—I stress the word "elected". We currently have regional government in the form of the Government office for the north-west, which was set up by the Conservatives. That organisation of civil servants is not answerable to the north-west but they make decisions about the north-west for the north-west.
If there is any doubt about that, I shall recount a brief tale from when I was a member of the Public Administration Committee and went to the Government office for the north-west to see how it, the local authorities and the agencies organised themselves. I asked the head of the Government office for the northwest, "To whom are you responsible?" His answer was clear: he is responsible to his civil servant superiors in Whitehall. I think it is indicative that he is responsible not to Ministers or Westminster, but to unaccountable civil servants in Whitehall.
Mr. George Howarth: Can my hon. Friend confirm that ultimately all civil servants are accountable to Ministers?
Mr. Turner: Of course they are in principle, but that is not the case in practice. My hon. Friend knows that that is not the case; he has worked in Government. He knows that a lot of decisions were made in the Northern Ireland Office at a lower level, which came to him. He nodded them through, signed for them, but he did not get the kind of detail that he should have had. He could have had that detail if the Northern Ireland Assembly, which he helped to set up, had dealt with those decisions. My hon. Friend helped to set up a regional assembly in Northern Ireland, but he does not seem to want one for the north-west. I do not quite understand the logic behind that, but presumably he will be able to explain in due course.
I will be brief because others want to speak, but I want to return to the point about the principle of the matter. There seems to be some misunderstanding because people think that what we are being offered will be set in stone. I do not see that. The very fact that we are arguing about the constitution today shows that the constitution of this country is a live thing. It changes as society changes, and as people's needs and moods change. That is why we have a Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly. They were answers to the way in which the people of Wales and Scotland changed. We are already seeing that Scotland and Wales want more powers to be devolved from central Government. That will happen in the north-west. I am afraid that if we follow the line of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer) we will end up in an Australian situation.

237WH
The majority of people want regional government in the north-west, but because none of us can agree on the type of government that we want, or the powers that should be devolved, we shall end up as they did in Australia when the majority of people wanted a republic, but voted for a monarchy because they could not agree on the type of republic that they wanted.
Mr. Peter Pike: Is it not a fact that when chambers of commerce and the public see exactly what powers are going to be given to the regions and their effect on strategic issues such as investment, jobs and employment, they will be convinced that this is the right way to progress?
Mr. Turner: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. That is exactly the point. If we ever wanted an example of when the north-west regional assembly could have been influential in securing investment in the north-west, we simply need to look at the Daresbury situation. If we had had an assembly arguing for the north-west, able to counter the arguments put forward from Oxford, I do not think that the decision made over Daresbury would have been the one taken.
Mr. Graham Brady: I know that the hon. Gentleman would not want to mislead the Chamber about Daresbury. The fact is that Oxfordshire did not want the synchrotron. The Government wanted to send it to Oxfordshire. That was nothing to do with competition from other regions, and a north-west assembly would have made no difference.
Mr. Turner: The hon. Gentleman may be right about the facts of the situation, but if we had had a regional assembly there would have been more focus, and we would have been able to put our arguments to the Government in a more focused way. The Government would have realised—as they did after their decision—the strength of feeling in the north-west. That situation would not have occurred.
On the British National party, if we tried to gerrymander a situation in which the BNP was excluded from electoral success, that would do democracy no good whatever. The way to beat the BNP is to point out the vileness of its policies and to argue a case, as we did with the Liberal Democrats in Burnley a week ago. We stopped the BNP in its tracks there. Unfortunately from my point of view, the Liberal Democrats got the benefit of that, but that happened because we argued the case against the BNP. That is the way to do it. If we try to gerrymander the situation, those people who already feel excluded and want to vote for the BNP will feel more excluded, and people will vote for the BNP in bigger numbers. The way to defeat it is by argument and political organisation.
3.4 pm
Sir Nicholas Winterton: I respect the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Turner), but I think that he completely understates the vital role, importance and success of existing local government in the United
238WH
Kingdom, whether it be the city of Manchester, the city of Liverpool, the county of Cheshire or the borough of Macclesfield. It works well, and it is close to the people.
Mrs. Ellman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Sir Nicholas Winterton: I will not give way. I do not intend to give way during my speech because of the time constraint.
I am incensed by the Government's plans for an unwanted and unnecessary elected regional assembly in the north-west of England. The Government stated in the recent soundings exercise that
"it is intended by the Government that the primary factor in determining which region(s) will undergo a review will be the level of interest in holding a referendum in each region."
However, the Deputy Prime Minister revealed that the level of interest—those who responded to the consultation process on which the Government based their decisions to hold a referendum in the north-west, the north-east and Yorkshire and Humberside—was only 0.01 per cent. of the population of the English regions.
As we heard earlier, only 0.06 per cent. of the total population of the north-west responded to the Government's consultation. Only 0.03 per cent. of the population called for a referendum, and not all those people were in favour of an elected regional government. In other words, 9,997 people in 10,000 either did not want a referendum or were insufficiently interested to express an opinion. Only three people in 10,000 voted in favour of holding a referendum. In total, 2,202 people in the north-west want a referendum, out of a population of nearly 7 million.
In Cheshire, about 20 per cent. of respondents supported the idea of a referendum, and about 80 per cent. said that they did not want one. That contrasts with Cornwall, where 50,000 people signed individual declarations calling for a fully devolved Cornish regional assembly, but Cornwall is not having a referendum. Will the Minister tell me why that is so?
An ICM poll on 12 June on the new European Union constitution found that 88 per cent. of people polled wanted a referendum on that constitution, with only 12 per cent. against. However, as we are aware, there are no plans to hold a referendum on the EU constitution, which is vital to the future of the UK as a free and sovereign nation.
The hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer) showed great experience and wisdom and spoke much sense about regional assemblies. He was right to say that regional assemblies will take power away from local people. In the north-west, I understand that there would be only 35 members representing a population of precisely 6.73 million. Where is the democracy in that situation? The people of the north-west will be asked to pay more in their council tax, but will receive less democracy. That is a fair deal for no one.
England already has enough politicians. Public services in my own borough of Macclesfield will not be improved by creating yet more politicians and fiddling with the tiers of local government. I totally support Cheshire county council's opposition to elected regional assemblies in England. The proposed parallel introduction of unitary authorities would bring about

239WH
yet another unwanted and costly upheaval for local government. We have known for some time that the Government plan to scrap England's shires and to spend up to £2 billion on restructuring local government throughout the country. I am sure that that money, as the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley said, would be better spent on public services.
There is no evidence that an elected regional assembly and a reorganised local government structure would improve the future delivery and quality of vital Government services such as education, health, social services, transport, and law and order. Taxpayers will have to pay for setting up an elected north-west regional assembly. My hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne), whom I congratulate on securing the debate, quoted the Government as saying that the assembly would cost about £25 million per annum, but we know that such estimates have proved unreliable, as with the Scottish Parliament building. I am utterly opposed to such wasteful, undemocratic proposals, which will do nothing for democracy or the delivery of public services.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker:Order. We have only six minutes left. I call Mr. Andrew Miller.
3.9 pm
Mr. Andrew Miller: First, we must deal with what the public want, and the public want service.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Briefly, please.
Mr. Miller: The question is whether we can improve the delivery of services to the people whom we represent. As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I lived for a long time in my adult life on the south coast. When living there, I was not convinced by any argument in favour of devolving power to the regions. I just thought that we had a nice cosy relationship with the City of London. I could pop up here, deal with major institutions and drop into the Palace of Westminster to lobby my MP and see Ministers. That is part of the normal relationship when someone lives on the doorstep, and it is because of the concentration of power in the City of London that the south-east has flourished so much during our lifetimes.
However, that was in stark contrast to my experience when I moved to the north-west in 1977. I suddenly realised just how different the relationships between the Government and the regions were. My previous perspective of that was completely false. I respect the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer), but it is based on a narrow picture of the world, and that is why we must change. We must empower people in the regions so that they can influence the things that directly impact on their lives.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Turner) talked about the need to make the regional government in the north-west accountable. The north-west regional assembly must be accountable. What better vehicle is there for that than scrapping the county councils—anachronistic organisations that have no role in a modern democracy—and replacing them with all-purpose unitary authorities that directly service my
240WH
constituents and, through the regional assembly, deal with the major strategic issues of inward investment, employment, jobs and so on? Those are the reasons why the House should support wholeheartedly a regional assembly in the north-west.
3.12 pm
David Maclean: The only speeches that I have made in the last two years have been very short. They usually follow the form, "I beg to move, That the Question be now put," and very popular they have been, too. I shall ask the Minister only a few quick questions on Cumbria, because there may be a chance for another colleague to speak.
If only 2,000 people in the north-west voted in favour of having a referendum, how many in Cumbria voted? Can the Minister give us the figures for those who participated in Cumbria—those who were for a referendum and those who were against?
Mr. Neil Turner: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
David Maclean: There is no time. The hon. Gentleman spoke for slightly longer than I intend to, and I must be selfish on this occasion.
The north-west is an artificially created region, as are all our regions, but Cumbria sits ill in the north-west region. As my hon. Friends have pointed out, Cumbria often cannot decide whether it is in the north-east or the north-west. In truth, it is in neither. Cut off by the Pennines on one side and by the Lake District mountains to the south, Cumbria is a large county on its own. However, if the Government dragged us into a north-west regional assembly, there would be only two representatives for the whole of the county of Cumbria. The problem is not only that rural areas would not have a voice, but that Carlisle, Workington and other places would have very little voice. Indeed, with only two representatives from our gigantic county in such an assembly, everyone in Cumbria would have very little voice. We have an electorate of only 400,000 all told, but reducing those voices by having just two representatives in a north-west regional assembly would be inappropriate and disgraceful.
I have another question for the Minister. If the referendum goes ahead, may we have a count on a county basis, so that we know how many people from Cheshire, Lancashire and Cumbria—how many people in our counties—voted for a north-west assembly? If there is a clear majority in Cumbria for being dragged into a regional assembly, we will accept it. However, if there is no majority, I will say that the Minister has no right to drag the people of Cumbria into a region with which they have no particular affinity, an assembly that they do not want and an enormous cost structure for which they do not want to pay.
Will the Minister tell us how much reorganisation will cost Cumbria if we have a regional assembly, and have to discard our county councils, amalgamate our district councils or make some dog's breakfast out of the two?
Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall return to my usual pattern of not speaking again for another two years.
3.14 pm
Mr. Andrew Stunell: I appreciate that other colleagues would have liked to participate in this extremely lively debate. Some strongly held views have been presented very articulately.
I commend the Deputy Prime Minister for his decision to go ahead with the referendum in the northwest. It will give all those who have spoken so eloquently against the referendum the opportunity to campaign and to vote against it, and it will encourage others to do the same. It will also give those like me who are in favour of it the opportunity to campaign for the referendum, and to encourage colleagues to vote for an assembly.
The somewhat belated decision to hold a double referendum in the two-tier areas was a good one. I hope that the Minister will confirm to the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer) that only the two-tier areas will take part in that referendum, so that it will not be imposed on them from the outside in any way. None the less, there are problems with the arrangement of that referendum, which I shall discuss briefly in a moment.
The north-west region should have the responsibility for taking decisions that affect it, and the powers to do so. The hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Turner) spoke the truth when he said that we already have the people who are taking these decisions: it is just that they are not accountable to elected politicians from the north-west or to the community of the north-west. A north-west regional assembly is a way of getting better public service delivery in the north-west. It will be better for wealth generation in the north-west and for the environment in the north-west.
Plans for the referendum have focused minds on key issues, which the debate has starkly highlighted: the exact functions and powers that the regional assembly will have, and the need to underline strongly that the important thing for many of us is to take back decision making from Westminster and, more particularly, from Whitehall. The assembly is not about taking powers from existing local government and existing local government units.
The number of representatives to be appointed or elected is another key issue. If the number is to be the smaller one of the numbers discussed, it will not be easy, geographically or politically, to get proper representation throughout the north-west, which is diverse and has many different aspects that need proper representation. Linked to that is the system of election, which the hon. Members for Manchester, Blackley and for Wigan briefly mentioned. The problem is not whether one attracts extremist candidates for election. The reality is that extremists did not get elected in Scotland or in Wales, although that depends on one's view about the socialist party in Scotland. As the hon. Member for Wigan said so clearly, the way to defeat extremist parties is to contest their views with the electorate and to win the election where they stand.
The Government have made the task of those of us who want elected regional government much more difficult by linking it with local government reorganisation. As some hon. Members know, I served on Cheshire county council and on Chester district. Many of my former colleagues have views about the
242WH
efficacy of local government in that area, and are very concerned that it might be lost in the process of reorganisation.
The pledge to publish the draft Bill is welcome. Will the Minister assure us that it will be published in short order? We need time to absorb those proposals and to base our campaign on them, not on some notional assumption about what is available. The same is true of the proposed alternative boundary options for those areas that will be reorganised. Depending on the form of the reorganisation, I suspect that the degree of support or opposition may vary quite widely in those areas of Cheshire, Lancashire and Cumbria. The Minister should do what he can to encourage the Electoral Commission to proceed briskly, and, more to the point, to ensure that his Department delivers a draft Bill in very short order.
When one considers what the referendum will test and what those who have to decide whether to vote yes or no have to take into account, one realises that the functions and powers of the new assembly will be of great importance. We want the Minister to reassure us that all the functions of the Government office for the northwest will be brought into the compass of the assembly and that the estimate of the budget that will be saved—the offsetting amounts of money that were mentioned by the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack)—will be subject to some critique of its validity so that we can assess the net extra cost that might be in the Government's mind when making the proposals.
If there is improved accountability and better delivery, and we get more bangs for our buck in relation to public services such as health and, particularly at present, transport, and in relation to developing the economy of the north-west, it might well be £25 million well spent. It might not. We need those facts and figures before us as the debate unfolds.
Voters in the referendum will need to know what sort of representation they are likely to get. Is it the case that the borough of Stockport, which currently has three and a half constituencies in it, would be lucky to have one representative? That clearly raises questions about democratic legitimacy. That kind of Hobson's choice makes considerable demands on those of us who want to vote yes.
There are also issues about local government reorganisation, which is perhaps particularly a matter for Members from two-tier areas—my own area is unitary. However, I do not want the Minister to think, having listened to the debate, that all is doom and gloom. There is a real sense of north-west identity. I say that as the Member of Parliament for Hazel Grove, which has other regions on two of its boundaries. The so-called east midlands region is next door. The Yorkshire and Humberside region is only five or six miles up the road. I am jammed in the south-east corner of the north-west, yet the residents of Hazel Grove are quite clear that they live in the north-west. I have to say to the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley that they are absolutely certain that they are not residents of Manchester.
We have a good start in terms of community identity and opportunities to deliver better public services. I hope that the Minister can give those of us present and the 6 million residents of the north-west the reassurance that we need to have a strong campaign for a yes vote.
3.22 pm
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am pleased to be contributing to what has been a good debate and delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) managed to secure it. I was even more delighted to be present when my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (David Maclean) broke his two-year vow of silence. May I urge him to break it a little more often? He spoke in an impassioned way and with a great deal of common sense. My right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack) and my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) made excellent contributions. It seemed that, on the Labour Benches, there was a majority against an unknown and unwanted region.
Page 73 from the White Paper, "Your Region, Your Choice" shows that the vast, unknown region extends from Cumbria in the north—no one is quite sure whether Cumbria wants to be in the north-west or the north-east, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border has made clear—to the south of Cheshire in the south. I am told reliably by my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton that if one gets in a car and drives from the Scottish borders to London, more than half the time is taken up driving through the region of the north-west. It is a vast region with no real community of interest stretching from the people at the top to the people at the bottom. It has a population of 6,880,500. As has been said, the soundings exercise showed that there was little interest in having a regional assembly. I will not read out the figures again.
What we want from the debate is answers to the six questions asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton. First, what are the ground rules for the referendum? Secondly, will the boundary commission report next May? Thirdly, what will be the date of the referendum; will it be next autumn? Fourthly, what framework will there be and what will be the spending limits for the campaign? Fifthly, will central and local government be able to contribute to it? Sixthly, what would be considered a derisory turnout? If we can get the Minister to answer those questions today we will have achieved a great deal.
There is much divided opinion on the issue. Many Labour Members in the north-west are against the proposal; for example, the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) said, "My argument, as someone representing a Merseyside constituency, is that Merseyside does not fit neatly into the fictional north-west."
[Laughter.]
Mr. Miller: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Clifton-Brown: No. I know that the hon. Gentleman is going to cause mischief. I must have inadvertently said north-east when I meant north-west. The hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) said, "I will be pressing for the map to be redrawn so we are included in the north-west." Not only do Labour Members oppose the region per se, they oppose the boundaries too.
In pressing the questions posed by my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton, I ask the Minister to turn to page 66 of the White Paper and tell us what criteria the local government boundary committee take into account. As
244WH
the White Paper says, a third of all the people in the north-west region will be "re-boundaried" in the local government boundary reorganisation. The White Paper states that the local government boundary committee will have to take into account what
"appeared to it to be desirable, having regard to the need 'to reflect the identities and the interests of local communities to secure effective and convenient local government"'.
What on earth does that mean? Will the Government publish guidelines to the local government boundary committee in good time, so that we know exactly what they say?
Mr. Pike: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I cannot, because I do not have much time.
I want to turn to the matter of expenditure. Much has been made of expenditure and, again, the White Paper has something to say about it. Page 44 states that
"an assembly in the North West would have a say on around £1.3 billion"
of expenditure plus the block grant of £2.1 billion. That seems to be sophistry, as the next page continues:
"In future, where a region has an elected assembly, its level of funding will continue to be determined in the same way";
in other words, it will not get extra funding. Indeed, Lord Rooker said:
"It is true that, compared with regions without elected assemblies, assemblies will not receive any additional money other than what we have outlined".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 April 2003; Vol. 123, c. 101.]
The question for the Minister is, will any other money be available?
May we have some more information about the referendum? Will all three referendums for the regions be on the same day? Will there be a preamble to the referendum, and if so, what will govern the wording? Can the Minister give us an idea what the question will be? Will there be more than one question? Will there be restrictions on the promotional material that central and local government can issue in the 28-day campaign?
There are many differing opinions on the matter and there is no less doubt about the expenditure involved and the cost of setting up the regional assembly, which many of my hon. Friends have mentioned. I have an additional question for the Minister: what does he think will be the cost of setting up the regional assembly? The original estimate of the cost of setting up the Scottish Executive was £152 million, but this year the cost is estimated to be £208 million. Those are not my figures; they come from a CBI press release. The situation is even worse in Wales; the original cost of setting up the Welsh Assembly was estimated to be £72 million, but it is now estimated to have cost £148 million, which is considerably more.
We estimate that it would cost £2 billion to set up all the regional assemblies and £3 million to run them. That is equivalent to 30 new hospitals, 400 extra schools, 6,000 new policeman and 12,000 new teachers. Yet the proposals will not improve public services one iota; they will not result in one extra teacher, nurse or policeman, at a time when the Liverpool women's hospital has seen

245WH
the number of patients waiting for admission rise by over 40 per cent. It is yet another example of a Labour Government wasting precious resources.
In case anyone is in any doubt that the north-west regional assembly is not wanted, I shall close by quoting my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith). Writing in the "Municipal Journal", he said:
"Putting the power of the centre before the needs of communities is nowhere more evident than in the Government's plans to abolish counties in favour of a regional tier of government. Counties are a tangible part of British identity and history. People who live outside the Metropolitan areas come from counties; only statistics come from regions. Counties exist in our hearts and minds; regions exist only in bureaucratic categorisation. Counties are part of our nation; regions are part of the state."
How can we have a referendum on this unwanted region and yet not have a referendum on perhaps the most important issue facing us today—an EU constitution?
3.30 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Phil Hope): I thought that we were going to get through the whole debate without a mention of Europe, but unfortunately the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) spoilt his track record.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) on securing the debate. He finished his eloquent speech with the interesting hostage to fortune that if the Conservatives cannot win this campaign, they cannot win any campaign. I have a suspicion that another campaign will come up in a couple of years' time that they may also look forward to losing.
The debate has been marked by the exceptional contribution from the right hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (David Maclean). After two years of silence, we heard him again today. He now goes back into the box of the Opposition Whips Office. I shall try to answer later some of the points that he raised, given the short time available to me.
The Government are rightly committed to a far-reaching and radical programme of constitutional change and devolution, transforming this country from what it was in 1997—one of the most centralised in the western world. We have devolved power to Scotland and Wales, we have restored citywide government to London and now we are offering the chance of devolved power to the English regions. On each occasion, the Opposition have initially opposed the proposals on the table and on each occasion they have backtracked and now accept our achievements.
Mr. George Howarth: I welcome my hon. Friend to his new responsibilities. Does he agree that if citywide government is good enough for London, it should be good enough also for Merseyside and Manchester?
Phil Hope: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. I shall address the concerns raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Stringer) later, when I discuss the importance of regions
246WH
as distinct from other forms of local government, particularly in relation to economic regeneration across the UK and achieving fairness of economic regeneration between the north and south.
Once again the Opposition are opposed to allowing people to choose how they are governed at the regional level. The only question is: when will they do a U-turn on this proposal?
As my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley pointed out, we are meeting our manifesto commitment to allow referendums on establishing elected regional assemblies in the regions that want them. My hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Turner) explained clearly why we want elected assemblies. The main functions to be transferred to them are those currently carried out by central Government and their agencies in the region or by unelected public bodies. Those powers will make a huge difference in vital areas, such as job creation, employment and skills, regional spatial strategies, housing strategies, transport funding, transport strategies, the cultural strategy and the regional tourist boards. The directly elected assemblies would be responsible for a long list of important functions; they would be elected by people in the regions and be accountable to them. They will thus democratise that existing layer of regional government, bringing decision making closer to the people in the region and making strategic regional decisions more accountable.
Mr. Miller: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend on his new post, although I regret losing a tennis partner. I hope that his office can sort that out.
Does my hon. Friend agree that the long list that he has read out is the reason why there is now a strengthening of opinion in favour of the Welsh Assembly, for example?
Phil Hope: Well, indeed. When we give democracy to people, they grab it and use it as a power base for their area. We have seen that in local government and the devolved assemblies in Scotland and Wales, and we shall see it in the English regions when they have democratically elected assemblies.
Sir Nicholas Winterton: The hon. Gentleman is talking nonsense. The responsibilities that he is talking about, and which are held by the Government office for the north-west, will be looked after by some 35 people in a regional assembly. Will he tell the House how many Members of Parliament there are for the north-west? All those responsibilities are looked after by the Members of Parliament for the north-west area who sit in this House.
Phil Hope: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point, but in the existing regional assemblies around 250 Conservative councillors take an active part in those regional chambers. They recognise the importance of taking part in democratically elected structures and the importance of a regional driver for economic regeneration, and when the referendums are held they will recognise the importance of creating newly elected regional assemblies that will take forward

247WH
the interests of those regions, not just in the north-west but in the north-east, including Yorkshire and Humberside.
Mrs. Ellman: I add my congratulations to the Minister on the vigorous way in which he is addressing this important brief.
Does the Minister think that the Opposition's suggestion that they should, as MPs, run the regional quangos would take power and decision making far away from people on the ground and that the answer is to have a directly elected regional assembly so that people who are responsible for the north-west arts, tourism, economic development, heritage, further education funding and many other issues will be accountable to the people on the ground, not to MPs?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Briefly.
Phil Hope: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) on her campaigning zeal on such issues. She is a well known advocate of a regional assembly in the north-west and I am delighted to see her in the Chamber. It is a pity that the shortness of the debate does not allow everyone to contribute. I want to put on record our gratitude for her work in championing the interests of the north-west.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: Will the Minister give way?
Phil Hope: I will, but time is short and I shall be unable to cover all the questions that hon. Members are asking, rightly, and to which I want to respond.
Mr. Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way and welcome him to his new job. Does he disagree with the then Minister for Local Government and the Regions, his right hon. Friend the Member for Greenwich and Woolwich (Mr. Raynsford), when he cited a range of responsibilities that the regional assembly would have—I chose the example of road transport schemes because he raised it—and said:
"Financial responsibility will remain with central Government"—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 17 December 2002; c. 298.]
and, therefore, the House? Yet the Minister said today that transport will be with the regional assemblies. Which is right?
Phil Hope: I regret that the hon. Gentleman has obviously not read the Government's White Paper, which spells out the proposals as to which powers will lie at a regional level and clearly describes in detail which transport matters will be regional and which will be local. I suggest to him that without a regional elected assembly there will not be the sort of democratic involvement that so many hon. Members for the north-west are keen to see when making such important regional decisions.
This debate is about a referendum and about riot imposing our views, but allowing people in the English regions to have a choice and to decide. Through the soundings exercise, we have determined in which three
248WH
of the eight regions there is support for a referendum, where we shall proceed, and the five where there is less support.
Opposition Members seem to think that the soundings exercise is the same as a referendum. When they quote their statistics about turnout for a soundings exercise it is as though we should have a referendum to have a referendum. That is nonsense. The purpose of the soundings exercise was to identify in which regions we should go forward to a referendum. That is when we can start to argue about turnout; I shall come to that in due course. My point is that the statistics being thrown about in this Chamber by Opposition Members show that they fail to understand that a soundings exercise is not a referendum. We shall engage in that referendum wholeheartedly.
In the north-west, the soundings exercise showed that 56 per cent. of respondents want a referendum. Although the county councils expressed opposition, perhaps for obvious reasons, 22 of 31 local authorities that responded are in favour, including more than three quarters of district councils and unitary authorities. Some 55 per cent. of respondents in the north-west think that the overall level of interest is strong or very strong. The region had the largest number of responses and six opinion polls in the north-west all showed a clear majority in favour.
Mr. Pike: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his new ministerial responsibilities. Does he recognise that many district and borough councils made representations supporting regional assemblies because they believed that the Banham reforms under the Conservative Government were a half-baked exercise that did not solve the problems facing local government?
Phil Hope: My hon. Friend is right to point out some of the mistakes of the past. I shall not dwell on those, but we want to get it right in future. We have made it clear from the outset that we believe that three tiers of government below the national level would be one too many. That reflects one of the points made by the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack). Last week the Secretary of State directed the independent boundary committee for England to carry out a local government review in each of the three northern regions. I point out that it is the boundary committee that is doing that, not the boundary commission.
While I am on that point, I was helpfully passed the policy and procedure guidance to the boundary committee for England, the publication of which the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) asked about. It was published on 16 June. I am sure that he will enjoy reading it. He also asked what would be in the referendum as if it was some great mystery, or as if there was some skulduggery lurking behind the bushes. I am glad to say that we have already decided that matter in the House. In the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Act 2003, the question is
"Should there be an elected assembly for the (insert name of region) region?"
That is the question that will be put to the electorate, so I hope that I have put that point to bed.
It is important that we give voters a choice and a say in the structure of their local government. The boundary committee for England is already asking people in the

249WH
north-west about their views on restructuring the county areas of Cheshire, Cumbria and Lancashire. That point was raised by other Opposition Members. The committee will make recommendations, including at least two options for the restructuring of each county area to the Deputy Prime Minister by 25 May. It will be people living in those county areas who will have an opportunity to vote on whether they want an elected assembly and on which option for local government they would prefer. That confirms the point made by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell).
Given that I have practically no time left, I shall try to deal with the specific questions of the hon. Member for Tatton on the date, cost and so on. I have to tell hon. Members that neither we—including myself as the newly appointed Minister—nor the civil service have pencilled in a date for the referendums. We have said that they might take place in autumn 2004. The boundary committee for England will make its recommendations by 25 May. The Deputy Prime Minister cannot lay an order for referendums until six weeks after that date. The referendum can then not be held until 10 weeks after both Houses approve the order, and hon. Members know what a busy time July is in both Houses. It would not be sensible to set a date until nearer the time when we know that we can deliver it.
I might add that under the terms of the framework, the referendums will take place under the provisions of the Political Parties (Elections and Referendums) Act 2000, with interested organisations applying to the Electoral Commission to be the designated "Yes" or "No" campaign. The commission has to designate the
250WH
body for each side, or none at all; it may make a grant of up to £600,000 to each, but it has not yet decided how much that grant will be. Financial limits under the PPER will apply to permitted participants in the campaigns, who must register with the Electoral Commission. I hope that that deals with some of the points about the cost of running the campaign.
Setting-up costs for the new elected assemblies will vary, but the hon. Member for Tatton is right: we expect it to be about £30 million in each region, which includes the assembly accommodation. It is impossible to give an accurate estimate of local government reorganisation costs, but we expect to see recommendations and savings from different regions in different ways. He was right to say that each assembly would cost about £25 million a year to run, but about £5 million of that cost will be offset because staff will transfer from existing bodies.
I shall move on rapidly, Mr. Deputy Speaker. On the question of thresholds, it is fair to say that the fairest and simplest approach is to decide solely on the basis of votes cast. That is a fairly old-fashioned view, I guess. It would be undemocratic if people who did not vote could in effect veto a decision by those who did. If we announced a precise figure on the question of a threshold, we would create a perverse incentive to wreck the referendum by not voting rather than simply opposing the proposal. That answers that particular point.
The debate is coming to a close, but I could make many other points.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must turn our attention to the next topic.

Air Quality (London)
3.45 pm
Mr. John Randall: After all that excitement, I am delighted to have the opportunity to raise the issue of air quality in London, which should be—I think that it is—a matter of great concern to each and every one of the millions of people who live or work within our capital city. The implications of not sorting out this major challenge are obvious in respect of the health of Londoners, but they also concern London's economic position.
Air pollution in London is, of course, nothing new and I am just old enough to remember my father wearing a face-mask on his way to work to try to combat the lethal smogs of the fifties. Happily, the Clean Air Act 1956 solved that problem, but today we are once again faced by a huge challenge. Poor air quality caused by pollution in the air impacts on human health, most typically by irritating the lungs and airways or by passing into the blood via our lungs. Children, older people and those who have pre-existing lung or heart conditions are most at risk. It has been estimated that the capital's air pollution causes around 1,600 premature deaths and a further 1,500 hospital admissions annually. The strain that that puts on London's health services is self-evidently tremendous.
The incidence of asthma has become increasingly prevalent in recent years. In the UK as a whole, there was a 50 per cent. increase in childhood asthma between 1975 and 1995 and, although I am told that air pollution itself is not thought to be a direct cause, it is recognised that it triggers attacks. There are, however, other significant causes.
Anecdotally, in the six years in which I have been coming to Westminster to work on behalf of my constituents, I have noticed that I suffer increasingly from congestion problems of the nasal variety, although I must say that it took me three hours to come the 18 miles from Uxbridge this morning. It is therefore wise to acknowledge that traffic congestion is a major cause of problems with air quality.
There are two concentrations of pollution on any map of air pollution in London. One is here in the centre of London; the other, on which I would like to concentrate, is in the Heathrow region. It is frightening to see exactly how poor the air is that many of us in the vicinity of the airport have to breathe.
The main pollutants that concern us in London are nitrogen dioxide and particulate matter. I am no scientist and must rely heavily on the advice and expertise of others. Like many other people, however, I am convinced by the evidence that I come across on a daily basis that poor air quality is now a major problem for many Londoners. I would like to take the opportunity at this stage to acknowledge the help that the air quality officer at the London borough of Hillingdon, Val Beale, has given to me.
My main concern is the area around Heathrow airport, where it is acknowledged that the air in many households is already above the EU limit values for nitrogen dioxide. I am not convinced that the impact of the building of terminal 5 has been properly taken into account. Indeed, the inspector at the
252WH
planning inquiry accepted that Heathrow has become a national air pollution hot spot. He stated that
"terminal 5 is likely to cause harm and to have an adverse impact on health as a result of Nitrogen Dioxide and Particulate Materials."
The concept of building a third runway at Heathrow would seem contrary to health considerations for local people.
Professor Duncan Laxen, in his report in October 2002 to the London borough of Hillingdon, stated that
"even with an aggressive set of assumptions about reductions in emissions from aircraft, there would still be thousands of people exposed above the EU limit value around Heathrow in 2015 and 2030."
He continued:
"The study carried out for the new runway identified more than a doubling of the number of people exposed to elevated pollutant concentrations."
Returning briefly to the question of terminal 5, it is interesting to note that the Secretary of State, in paragraph 77 of his decision letter, stated that
"he considers that the Inspector placed too little weight on the European Community law aspects of the air quality issues and he recognises the obligations that Community law imposes on the Government."
The Minister here today is not from the Department for Transport, so I will not repeat the many arguments about further expansion at Heathrow. However, I will pose some questions related to health and the environment.
I was not sure whether the Minister present would be from the Department of Health or from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. I am delighted to see the Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality here, but I do not know whether he will be able to respond to my questions. If not, I shall have to take the route of parliamentary questions.
First, I should like to know whether the Department of Health has made any assessment of the health implications of terminal 5 for the Heathrow area and of the implications for the local health economy. I would also like to know whether it has done any work on what would be likely to happen if a third runway were to be built? The same questions apply, although in a slightly different way, to the Minister's Department.
When does the Minister expect air quality to fall within the limits set by the European Union and what would he recommended for people who live in areas where the nitrogen dioxide levels are higher than will be legal—under EU law—in a few years' time? Would the logical position be for the Department to expect people to leave their homes, or for the airport to close down, neither of which would be a satisfactory solution? Does the Department accept that the health of people in those areas has already been adversely affected by poor air quality and, if so, what have the two Departments done to alleviate that situation? Has any consideration been given to the financial implications for local primary care trusts as a result of the increased problems that they face?
I am concerned that those involved in the decisions that will be made shortly on increasing air traffic capacity in south-east England, and particularly on the possible provision of a third runway at Heathrow, have put the question of air quality to one side. I believe that

253WH
they have taken the rather glib attitude that they will sort out the problem when they come to it. However, I was pleased to note that the Department for Transport said that it did not accept the recently revised figures put forward by BAA plc, which substantially reduced the projected amounts. One might say that BAA plc "would say that, wouldn't they?" I am delighted that the Department for Transport is taking a view on that.
I would also like to know whether the Minister's Department, and Ministers or officials in the Department of Health, have spoken to their colleagues in the Department for Transport and whether they have made any formal representations to that Department, such as a formal response to the consultation that will finish at the end of this week.
There are already severe health consequences in the vicinity of Heathrow in relation to air quality. Those problems, of course, exist in the rest of London, but hon. Members will understand that I am speaking from a constituency point of view, and therefore concentrating on the Heathrow area. I would like to think that the Departments that cover all aspects of the problem take the issue seriously, and that we really live in an era of joined-up government, so that the Departments involved talk to each other about it. Does the Minister agree with me, many other hon. Members on both sides of the House, many people who live in the poisoned shadow of Heathrow, and those eminent academics when we say that, for air quality reasons alone, there should be no third runway at Heathrow?
3.55 pm
The Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality (Alun Michael): I am grateful to the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) for raising this important issue and for the manner in which he covered it. First, let me reassure him on joined-up government. As he acknowledged, I would not want to respond on matters that fall within the brief of other Departments, but we have regular meetings at which Ministers engage with colleagues. A few weeks ago, my noble Friend Lord Whitty and I had meetings with Transport Ministers about some of the matters that concern us. In view of the opportunity to redefine portfolios a week ago, we decided to incorporate DEFRA's transport interests and air quality interests into one portfolio for which Lord Whitty is now responsible. Air quality issues were part of my portfolio until last week, but I am sure that that focus, on which both of us were keen, will benefit joined-up government.
I am happy to draw the attention of colleagues at the Department of Health to relevant queries that the hon. Gentleman raised. He started with the improvement in air quality since the killer smogs of the 1950s and referred to his father's experience of wearing a face mask. Having visited London in the 1950s, I know how dramatically different the air quality is now compared with that in those days.
That long-term trend has continued over the last decade. The latest results from the air quality headline indicator show that in 2002 there were on average just 24 days when air pollution levels in London were recorded as moderate or higher, compared with 43 days in 1996.
254WH
Those improvements have been achieved through progressively tighter vehicle emission and fuel standards and the introduction of comprehensive controls over pollution from industrial and domestic sources.
The problem has not gone away, however. In certain areas of the country, including parts of London, pollution levels are unacceptably high. We must address that, not least because of the health impacts of exposure to air pollution, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Examples are the links to asthma and reduced life expectancy.
The hon. Gentleman focused on airports and the impact of Heathrow, so it is only fair to respond to those points. Aviation, too, has a role to play, and we will take air quality fully into account in the air transport White Paper, which is due to be published by the end of the year. Air quality was a key consideration in the terminal 5 decision. We made it clear that another runway at Heathrow could not be considered unless the Government could be confident that levels of all relevant pollutants could be consistently maintained within EU limits. We also said that in our consultation paper on the future development of air transport in the UK, I can therefore assure the hon. Gentleman that air quality issues have not simply been brushed to one side.
BAA plc is required to produce and keep under review an action plan showing how it intends to minimise emissions from, and attributable to, Heathrow. We have issued a clear challenge to the aviation industry: it must dramatically reduce the emissions of nitrogen dioxide from aircraft using Heathrow if there is to be any question of considering a third runway.
Most London boroughs have found some areas where the strategy's air quality targets for nitrogen dioxide and particles are unlikely to be met without further measures. In most cases, that is primarily because of road traffic emissions. However, the hon. Gentleman is right to say that in Hillingdon and Hounslow emissions from Heathrow airport were identified as another source. The two local authorities concerned are now drawing up action plans to tackle the problems identified. Where action is outside their remit—for example, with regard to Heathrow airport, motorways or trunk roads—they will work with the airport authorities and the Highways Agency.
The UK aviation industry has recently committed itself to tough targets for emissions improvements. The Department of Trade and Industry aerospace innovation and growth team report that was launched on 11 June is based on European targets of a further 50 per cent. reduction in CO2 per passenger kilometre by 2020. It also contains an ambitious target to reduce NOx emissions by 80 per cent.
It is worth pointing out that new cars are much cleaner than they used to be 10 years ago. A new car bought in a showroom today will emit about one tenth of the pollution of one bought a decade or so ago, and additional improvements continue to contribute to long-term air quality.
On the general air quality issue, action is under way locally and nationally, and internationally, because air pollution does not respect national boundaries. Emissions of pollutants arising in mainland Europe can contribute significantly to concentrations in the UK, particularly in London and the south-east. We are

255WH
working closely with our partners in Europe to tackle trans-boundary pollution. Reductions agreed under the national emissions ceiling directive in the UK and in other member states will play an important part in helping to cut emissions at source.
The Government's air quality strategy, to which I referred a few moments ago, sets out our policies for tackling air pollution. It includes health-based standards for the main pollutants of concern and objective dates for their achievement across the UK. The fact that those objectives are, in some cases, tighter than the corresponding legally binding European air quality directive limit values—the limit on nitrogen dioxide has been introduced five years early—demonstrates our commitment to delivering cleaner air as soon as possible.
Mr. Randall: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way and I have been listening with great interest. Will he acknowledge that there are households in areas where air pollution is above that level?
Alun Michael: Some areas have specific problems, which is one of the reasons for putting together the areas where specific action is required. Hillingdon carried out a review and assessment of air quality within its boundaries, which is why an air quality management area covering approximately two thirds of the borough has been declared from the A40 corridor to the southern borough boundary. Hillingdon must now develop an air quality action plan in order to reduce emissions and to improve air quality. That is one way to focus on areas where there are particular problems. I accept the hon. Gentleman's point that there are some places where air quality is unsatisfactory. In order to tackle that, action must be taken at the international, national and local levels, which is allowed for in the legislation and in the practical arrangements. I hope that my reply has fully acknowledged his point.
Measures have been implemented or are being introduced to meet the objectives in the strategy. Those include further vehicle emission and fuel standards, fuel duty differentials and our power shift and clean-up grant schemes to promote the wider use of greener fuels and vehicles. Our 10-year transport plan sets out an investment programme of £180 billion to improve public transport, to cut congestion and to reduce air pollution. We have introduced the system of local air quality management, to which I have just referred, that allows local authorities to identify pollution hot spots and to implement local measures to deal with them.
We also have a system of local transport plans under which local authorities can bid for new capital funding for local transport measures. We have given local authorities new powers and new funding to carry out roadside emission testing where levels of pollution are high, and some 26 London boroughs have been designated so far.
We are on course to meet, or have already met, the objectives for most of the pollutants, but indications are that additional measures are likely to be needed if we are fully to meet the nitrogen dioxide and particles objectives in certain parts of England, including parts of London. Targets are being challenged, as the hon. Gentleman said.
256WH
Under the Greater London Authority Act 1999, the Mayor of London has devolved responsibility for air pollution in London. His air quality strategy, which was published last year, sets out how he intends to implement the air quality objectives in the Government's air quality strategy. The measures include implementing the cleanest bus fleet in the United Kingdom, the first emission standards for taxis and the possible introduction of low emission zones to ban high-polluting vehicles.
I understand that the Mayor will publish a feasibility study on low emission zones shortly, and is also assessing the impact of his congestion charging scheme, including the impact on air quality. The Mayor's air quality and transport strategies will have a key role to play, as will the air quality action plans that individual boroughs are working on under their local air quality management duties. All that is crucial if we are to meet our objectives and the corresponding European limit values.
We are considering what additional measures might be needed as part of our review of the air quality strategy, the review of the 10-year plan for transport and the delivery of the Department's joint public service agreement with the Department for Transport to meet air quality targets. It is worth saying that all these measures sound rather formal, but they are intended to drive up the quality of air that our citizens breathe and to drive down the levels of pollution in a way that improves the general quality of life.
Mr. Randall: I do not doubt the sincerity of the Minister or the Government in trying to reduce the level of pollution, but will the Minister, with his vast experience, tell me what will happen if the level of pollution in these areas is still above European levels by 2010? Those levels will be a legal requirement by then, so what will happen if they are not met? Will it be a slap on the wrist, and which Department will be in trouble? Will the Government be in trouble, or the Mayor? I want to know what the consequences might be.
Alun Michael: We are all in trouble if we do not meet the objectives, not only because they are requirements, but because we are dealing with the health of our citizens. That returns me directly to the point made by the hon. Gentleman right at the beginning. The Mayor of London has the power of direction over the boroughs, and the Government have the power of direction over the Mayor. If necessary, there are powers to require actions to be taken to ensure that the measures are having the desired effect on the levels of pollution, which are regularly and carefully monitored. However, I am optimistic that everyone, including the local authority officers, about whom the hon. Gentleman was talking, the Mayor of London and Departments, recognises the importance of achieving the objectives and will work co-operatively at all levels of government. That is the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question "What if?" There are powers of direction, should it be necessary to use them. I sincerely hope that we all agree that the achievement of local, national and international objectives, and careful monitoring to ensure that progress is being made and at the required speed, is the right way to approach the issue.

257WH
I assure the hon. Gentleman that we take air quality very seriously. We recognise that London and other parts of the UK will have the real challenge of meeting air quality targets, and the transport sector will have an important part to play in that. As the hon. Gentleman suggested, that includes airport operators and aviation. Local measures will have a key role to play in addressing the problems, especially at the sort of level that he highlighted. The Government will continue to work towards meeting their targets to provide cleaner air for everyone and to meet the UK's obligations under the European air quality legislation to which he referred.
4.9 pm
Sitting suspended.

Patient Packs/Dispensing Costs
4.10 pm
Mr. Mark Todd: This may seem a rather mechanistic and narrow subject for an Adjournment debate, but it is an opportunity to reflect on a subject that is of great concern to a number of key constituents of most Members of Parliament. It is also a matter with a great deal of history behind it.
I want to cite a presentation made to the British Pharmaceutical Conference in Llandudno in September 1958 by Mr. Chamings, a former head of the Leicester school of pharmacy, setting out the basis for original pack dispensing of pharmaceutical products. An article from The Pharmaceutical Journal describing his contribution states:
"In his talk, Mr Chamings said that the use of proprietary medicines in manufacturers' original packs had reached the level of 80 or 90 per cent. in continental Europe and North America. This, he said, 'points to the inevitable in British medicine' although, at that time, the average in Britain was around 50 per cent. Famously, he pulled a continental pack of medicine from his pocket and asked: 'Why can't we do it like this?'"
But to take a little bit of more recent history, the same article, quoting The Pharmaceutical Journal of 18 June 1983, said:
"The breaking of bulk"—
bulk in this sense means bulk packages of pills or other prescription products—
"to meet prescriptions has resulted in an anachronistic cottage industry within pharmacy."
We have clear evidence that for many years it has been recognised that the practice of taking a large number of pills in bulk and then putting them into a separate pot or package for passing on to a patient is inefficient, anachronistic and carries certain other risks. During this short debate, I shall develop the argument that we should at last bring that process to a conclusion in this country.
For those of us who obtain prescriptions from a pharmacist, blister packs are the commonest way in which we see a product. They are safer and have a quality control placed on them that is far greater than the bundling of pills, however carefully done, by a pharmacist in a back room. The integrity of the pack is retained. The expiry date is clear. There is a batch number that allows the product to be traced back to the manufacturer. There is a clear description of the contents and the quantity, which is displayed clearly on the pack.
There is a small pharmaceutical manufacturer in my constituency, and I am pretty sure that my hon. Friend the Minister has a much larger one in her constituency. When visiting the site, I am always amazed by the absolutely understandable and obsessive concern with quality control that ensures that what we get in the pack passed to us by a pharmacist is exactly what we need. The quality control involved in the preparation of the individual pill and packaging it into whatever receptacle is used by the manufacturer is critical to that process, and to the manufacturer's achieving a licence to do that task at all.
Let us compare that with what happens in a pharmacy, in which people take the product in bulk and handle it however best they can into the receptacle that

259WH
they are going to give to the patient. Imagine the process continuing in the home of the patient. The patient could have a bottle of pills, which is pretty rare nowadays, or a split pack, which is quite common and which involves someone being given one pack of a product plus a cutoff piece of foil from another pack to make up the correct quantity. That method of quality control is far inferior to that of dispensing a complete pack as produced by the manufacturer. No one would argue that using the original pack from the manufacturer is not the safest and the highest quality way for a pharmacist to meet a prescription requirement.
Using the original pack also improves compliance in relation to the product. One of the critical issues, which we are increasingly coming to recognise, is that health is a contract between various parties. Critically, one of them is the patient. Patients have to be persuaded that they need to complete the course that they have been given by a pharmacist. They expect accurate information and easy to remember ways in which to check whether they have taken the product that they are supposed to on a certain day. Those things are innate when using the original manufacturer's packs. It is far harder to be confident about compliance when there are split packs or products that are sourced direct from the pharmacist from bulk products supplied to him or her.
The process is also immensely wasteful and time-consuming. The classic example is when a pack is available in 28-day units, but the doctor has prescribed a course of 30 days. Someone takes the 28-day pack and snips two days off another pack, leaving a 26-day pack. Unless another patient comes in and another two days are snipped off, those items are unlikely to be used, and the risk of damaging the product in the process of snipping it up is quite significant. Why can we not have either 28 or 30 days—we need to define what we mean by a month of treatment—and pack in a uniform, standardised form?
As the answer to my parliamentary question of a few weeks ago revealed, at the moment, the national health service pays between £5 million and £6 million a year to pharmacists to compensate for packs that are broken into and thrown away. That is a waste of public resources. We should be addressing the matter anyway and hoping to improve our performance.
Dispensing in broken packs also takes more time. If someone is fiddling around trying to cut the correct number of items up to put in an envelope to go with the complete pack, that will take longer. Worse still, that person has to comply with European Union law and provide a leaflet to go with the small number of additional pills. If there are no spares in the pharmacy, the Department of Health kindly provides xerox machines to allow people to copy the leaflets and hand them out to those who receive a prescription, but there are doubts about the legality of that process. Surely, it is an obtuse response to a matter that should be addressed by examining the most sensible process to address a need, rather than trying to find bodge-it and fix-it methods of dealing with inadequacies.
The process of monitoring the dispensing of products is immensely costly. Again, a question to the Department of Health about a month ago elicited the fact that between 1990–91 and 2002–03 the cost of the Prescription Pricing Authority—the people who process the scripts that go through a pharmacy—has increased
260WH
in real terms by £18 million. That is ignoring inflation and I was careful to ask the question in that way. That is largely a reflection of the increased number of prescriptions that are being given out to people—something that we all must accept.
Nevertheless, it is fair to say that, when pharmacists examined the remuneration paid to them during the same period for each prescription dispensed, they established that in 1990–91 the figure was £1.39 for each prescription, and that in 2000–01 the figure had dropped to £1.05. Therefore, it is one-way traffic. We expect greater and greater efficiency from pharmacists, and, as I have said, we can improve their efficiency, but the cost of the bureaucracy and processing regime that the Government maintain to support the paperwork has continued to escalate and, indeed, has not demonstrably improved its performance in unit costs over that period, as the answer to my question showed.
Having chosen the subject of this Adjournment debate, I received some comments from interested parties on the matter, and I want to quote from one of them. I refer to the organisation that produces drugs that have gone beyond the point at which the major manufacturers continue to protect their rights. Such drugs can then be bulk produced by anyone with the appropriate licence. The British Generic Manufacturers Association said that it would be very happy for me to confirm in my speech that it
"fully supports the introduction of patient packs as the normal presentation for prescription medicines."
It also said that it is happy to discuss the way in which it could standardise the numbers in the packs. Obviously, it could be 28 or 30; there are arguments either way. There could even be some differences between products. However, the sensible approach would be to make sure that we understood what unit we were using.
I also read some of the comments made by the patients. The pharmaceutical press has been running a campaign on the issue recently, and among the contributors was Epilepsy Action, which referred to examples of products that it had been shown that had been dispensed to people to meet their needs. One bundle came from a woman who had been given four different packs from different countries and by different manufacturers supposedly containing identical medicines. Epilepsy Action even received reports of people being given mixed bubble packs in the same box. Any steps that can prevent such things from happening will be welcome.
There is a consensus that we are adopting a low-quality approach, which also has significant inefficiencies within it. What can we do about it? It is not a new subject. Indeed, Governments—I use the term generically—have already accepted the need for progress towards the provision of patient packs. Until November 1997, various parts of the industry were co-operating with the Government towards an agreed plan that would make all products available only in patient packs by 1999. However, minor difficulties with modest cost implications emerged—I have referred to the fact that we spend about £5 million to £6 million a year on broken packs, and additional photocopiers were provided to all pharmacists at a cost of about £500,000. 'The relatively small-scale costs of progressing through

261WH
to the conclusion of the patient pack programme are between £5 million and £10 million a year. Those cost implications put off the Department of Health, which aborted the project.
We are therefore left with a continuing legacy of packs of various sizes, and with some products not in patient packs at all. That results in confusion for GPs, who have to remember exactly what quantities they are supposed to prescribe; pharmacists, who have to fumble around and try to remember the correct quantities; and patients, who are left with an unsatisfactory bundle, sometimes of pills in different shapes and sizes.
The approach of giving greater freedoms to the different nations of our country has resulted in some useful initiatives. In Scotland, an experiment is under way that allows pharmacists to dispense to the nearest quantity of an available patient pack. Therefore, when a doctor prescribes for 30 days, but the pack is for 28-day, the patient will get a 28-day pack. That seems a modest and intelligent approach that we should adopt in the UK as a whole.
There are some small exceptions. There are some items that we would not wish to see in 28 or 30-day packs. Those have been identified in the exercise that I have referred to, and consensual ways forward have been agreed. Some say that the flaw is that one cannot apply the scheme to antibiotics or antihistamines. I agree with that, but we can address that matter intelligently while maintaining the integrity of the patient pack initiative.
The scheme is an idea whose time probably came about 45 or 50 years ago. Our time-warp approach leaves us offering a less efficient and less safe service than would be experienced by patients in other countries. The negotiation of the new contract for pharmacists should finally start to prod us into the modern age. I emphasise that we are prodding at an open door. I had a meeting with local pharmacists in my local area, and they are keen to make progress. One very active local pharmacist in my area, Michael Everitt, runs a pharmacy in Castle Gresley and regularly calls me on pharmacy matters. They are keen to see us make progress. They recognise that it is a legitimate part of the negotiation of pharmacists' contracts. Therefore, I very much hope that the Minister will be able to give some indication of the Government's commitment to bring this long-awaited project to its conclusion.
4.29 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Miss Melanie Johnson): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Mr. Todd) on his success in securing a debate on this important issue. We greatly value his interest in health and health care issues and, in particular, his contribution to the all-party parliamentary group on pharmacy. He is a staunch and knowledgeable proponent of the role that pharmacists can play in the health, and indeed the life, of the nation. He has proved that by his words this afternoon.
This country has the benefit of a highly educated and trained pharmacy work force. I share with my hon. Friend a conviction that we must use those skills and
262WH
knowledge to best effect. The Government have made clear their commitment to sustaining and further developing the important contribution made by pharmacists in modernising NHS services for patients. The debate about patient packs is about the safe, accurate and efficient handling of more than 600 million prescription items a year.
However, there is sometimes a misunderstanding of the Government's position on patient packs. We are fully supportive of the use of patient packs, and we have never in any way opposed their manufacture or use. We accept that there are advantages to the use of patient packs. Our reservations are about the appropriateness, practicality and cost of moving to a situation under which complete patient packs are the only form in which medicines are prescribed by doctors or dispensed in community pharmacies. We are yet to be convinced, as some are, that the exclusive use of patient packs represents the only way of complying with the European directive on labelling of medicines and patient information leaflets. Nor have we been convinced that there is a simple, cost-effective or even desirable way of mandating that patients receive their medicines only in complete patient packs.
Switching to patient packs sounds a simple idea, but in fact it raises complex and difficult issues. Hon. Members might think that doctors should be strongly encouraged to prescribe in standard pack quantities, but standard packs do not necessarily contain the quantities that doctors prescribe, or that they believe they need to prescribe.
Mr. Todd: I am listening with care to what the Minister says. I quoted the experience of my constituent who told me that he would regularly ring up a doctor to say, "You said 28, but in fact they come in packs of 30"—or vice versa—"and do you mind?" He said that he had never heard of a doctor saying, "No. I want precisely that quantity, not what you've just said." The difficulty is not that doctors want to prescribe a different quantity, but that there is a lack of knowledge of the precise pack quantities with which they are dealing—understandably so, as doctors have many other things to think of.
Miss Johnson: I appreciate my hon. Friend's point, but he is talking about a small variation. There might be much wider variations in the numbers that doctors want of something. The pack size might be for 14, 28 or 30 days, although somebody should be given a particular drug for just a couple of days. There are situations other than that which he is envisaging that might pose more problems for the argument that he advances.
We could insist that pharmacists dispense complete patient packs, even if they contain more or less than that which has been prescribed. The question then is, what if the quantities in those packs are inappropriate for the patients who receive them? It might not be a question of two days, but of a considerable variation. On the argument about cost and paying for the medicines, discarding the excess part of the packs before dispensing could mean the NHS paying for medicines that will inevitably be wasted. 1 appreciate that my hon. Friend and I share the same interest in the efficiency of the system, getting the best value for money and minimising waste. We must consider the best way of taking that forward.

263WH
It is true that pharmacies can claim so-called "broken bulk" payments for the remainder of packs that they cannot use, but that applies only to residues that cannot be used up within six months. It does not routinely apply to all packs that are split. Even if we could agree that prescribers should prescribe, or pharmacists dispense, standard pack sizes, we would have to decide what is a standard pack. Different suppliers supply different size packs for the same product; clearly, different GPs have different ideas too. We could impose standard pack sizes, but we do not see it as the Government's job to tell the pharmaceutical industry what pack sizes to make. In any event, and as my hon. Friend said, there is trade in medicines across the European Union, and any attempt to impose special UK pack sizes would be likely to breach EU rules on the free movement of goods.
It was largely because those various issues had not been addressed properly that we decided against continuing the previous Administration's patient pack initiative. The proposed arrangements were highly complex, and important details had not been agreed. Contingency arrangements were missing, and we calculated that the initiative would have diverted up to £60 million from direct patient care during the first three years and £15 million each year thereafter. That calculation was based on earlier figures, so it is not a current costing.
Our decision on the patient pack initiative indicated no lack of commitment to ensuring that patients receive medicines in a safe, appropriate and convenient way, accompanied by the correct information leaflets. We have explored several ways in which pharmacists and others can be helped to comply with the requirements of the European directive and it was in that spirit that we put forward a package of measures last August.
First, we issued guidance reminding pharmacists of their obligation to provide patient information leaflets. The guidance acknowledged that there would be circumstances in which pharmacists would have to dispense either from bulk supplies or from split patient packs. The guidance made it clear that the best approach by far in such cases would be for the company marketing the medicine to supply sufficient copies of the original leaflet. Failing that, pharmacists might photocopy leaflets or download them from a reputable electronic source.
Secondly, while acknowledging concerns about copyright, we opened consultation on a proposal to provide a statutory defence for pharmacists who copy leaflets for the sole purpose of complying with the law. We also offered to make a one-off payment, of £500, to community pharmacies to help to meet the costs of gearing up to comply with the law.
Thirdly, we said that we would consider with interested parties the possibility of allowing a certain amount of rounding of prescriptions, so that, in the case in which my hon. Friend was interested, for example, prescriptions calling for 28 tablets to be dispensed might he met by packs of 30 and vice versa. We also said that we would explore with the National Prescribing Centre and primary care trust prescribing advisers what actions might be appropriate to promote prescribing practices that would facilitate the provision of patient information leaflets.
264WH
The consultation on the proposal to provide a statutory defence to permit pharmacists to copy leaflets provoked considerable interest. The Medicines Control Agency, as it then was, received some 130 responses. There was, of course, significant support for the principle of written information with medicines, but it is fair to say that many respondents expressed disquiet about the particular mechanisms discussed in the document. In relation to the statutory defence itself, some respondents were in favour and some were against. Inevitably, responses addressed wider issues about patient packs and the provision of leaflets. In particular, pharmacy and pharmaceutical industry bodies expressed considerable reservations about the appropriateness and practicality of photocopying leaflets and argued forcefully that the only feasible way forward is patient pack dispensing.
We are, of course, giving those views and all the other responses that we received careful consideration, but two important points remain. First, the notion of patient pack dispensing is not, in our view, as simple as it is claimed to be. As I have explained, we do not believe that there is a ready-made, cost-effective solution simply waiting to be taken down from the shelf. Secondly, even if such a solution existed, the present reality is that medicines in this country are frequently dispensed in part-packs, whether from bulk supplies or from patient packs. It is clearly preferable for companies marketing medicines to provide sufficient copies of original leaflets for pharmacies to use, but if they do not, surely it is better that pharmacists photocopy or download leaflets than that patients receive no leaflets at all.
No-one would deny that there is a case for looking at how we can avoid the unnecessary splitting of patient packs. As I have said, we have already signalled our willingness to talk about ways of facilitating the greater use of complete packs by permitting rounding between 28 and 30 packs. That will be done in the context of our overall desire to simplify the rules governing the reimbursement of medicines dispensed on the NHS.
Mr. Todd: I referred to the increasing efficiency of pharmacists. A parliamentary answer showed that over the past 10 years pharmacists have been asked to dispense more products for the same mount of money or thereabouts. Does the Minister accept that the present round of negotiations with pharmacists, particularly in the context of the OFT report, is an opportunity to tie up some of the issues and provide a real gain in terms of patient quality outcomes rather than just addressing it in terms of whether we shall photocopy some leaflets?
Miss Johnson: I agree with my hon. Friend that it provides an opportunity for such matters to be discussed further. I undertake to investigate whether the matter is being included in the discussions in any way, shape or form. However, I am sure that my hon. Friend will accept that it is not just a matter of community pharmacists negotiating with the Government. The views of GPs, hospital and pharmacy services, those writing prescriptions in a hospital setting, the pharmaceutical industry and the patients must also be involved.
It being twenty minutes to Five o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.

PRIME MINISTER

  Chechnya
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will raise with President Putin during his visit to the UK(a) the general situation in Chechnya and (b) the safety of Chechens deported from the UK to the Russian Federation. [121505]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) at Prime Minister's Questions on 18 June 2003,Official Report, column 355.

  Iraq
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister when he first read the dossier, "Iraq—its Infrastructure of Concealment, Deception and Intimidation", released on 3 February 2003; what advance notice the Foreign and Commonwealth Office had of this dossier before publication; and whether a(a) draft and (b) final version of the dossier was circulated to Members of the Cabinet prior to publication. [120790]

  The Prime Minister
  This was a briefing paper for the media that had been commissioned by a cross-departmental Iraqi communications group chaired by my Director of Communications. It was issued by the Downing Street Press Office with my authorisation in the normal way. A copy was placed in the Library of the House for the information of right hon. and hon. Members.

  David Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will discuss with the US President measures for immediate progress in(a) the provision of essential services, (b) the payment of salaries and (c) other related matters in the administration of Iraq; and if he will make a statement. [121414]

  The Prime Minister
  I am in regular touch with President Bush on all aspects of reconstruction in Iraq. We are working closely with our Coalition partners, the UN and the international community under UNSCR 1483 to provide the basis for a democratic and prosperous future for the people of Iraq.

  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to his answer of 17 June 2003,Official Report, column 164W, on Tariq Aziz, under what powers Tariq Aziz is held; and what time limits there are to holding him in custody without charge. [121462]

  The Prime Minister
  In accordance with the Fourth Geneva Convention 1949, Occupying Powers are entitled to detain individuals in a variety of circumstances, including where those individuals are suspected of criminal conduct or where they otherwise 654W
  pose a security risk. Since Tariq Aziz is currently in US custody, issues relating to his detention are a matter for the US.

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Prime Minister whether he saw the document "Iraq—its infrastructure of concealment, deception and intimidation"(a) in draft and (b) in final form before it was made public. [121558]

  The Prime Minister
  This was a briefing paper for the media that had been commissioned by a cross-departmental Iraqi communications group, chaired by my Director of Communications. It was issued by the Downing Street Press Office with my authorisation in the normal way. A copy was placed in the Library of the House for the information of right hon. and hon. Members.

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Prime Minister whether the document "Iraq—its infrastructure of concealment, deception and intimidation" was seen by the Cabinet Secretary(a) in draft and (b) in final form before it was made public. [121560]

  The Prime Minister
  No.

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Prime Minister whether, at the time he made his statement on Iraq on 3 February 2003,Official Report, columns 21–31, he had been informed of the nature of the non-intelligence sources used to compile the document, "Iraq—its Infrastructure of Concealment, Deception and Intimidation". [121564]

  The Prime Minister
  On the front page of the briefing paper it made clear that:"This report draws upon a number of sources, including intelligence material".

  I refer the right hon. Member to my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent (Llew Smith) on 10 February 2003, Official Report, column 583W.

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Prime Minister whether, at the time he made his statement on Iraq on 3 February 2003,Official Report, columns 21–38, he had been informed of which officials in his Prime Ministerial Department were involved in compiling the document, "Iraq—its Infrastructure of Concealment, Deception and Intimidation". [121565]

  The Prime Minister
  I was aware that the briefing paper for the media had been commissioned by a cross-departmental Iraqi communications group, chaired by my Director of Communications. It was drafted by officials in the Communication and Information Centre and Number 10 officials were consulted in the normal way.

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Prime Minister whether the document "Iraq—its infrastructure of concealment, deception and intimidation" was seen by the Chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee(a) in draft and (b) in final form before it was made public. [121559]
  655W
  The Prime Minister
  The JIC chairman did not see the document either in draft or in final form. The Intelligence and Security Committee have already looked into this matter. In their report published on 10 June 2003 they concluded that:"We have been assured that systems have now been put in place to ensure that this cannot happen again, in that the JIC Chairman endorses any material on behalf of the intelligence community prior to publication."

  The Government have already put the appropriate mechanisms in place to ensure that the correct procedures will be followed in the future.

  However on this occasion it is important to be clear that the intelligence material included in the briefing paper was provided by the relevant intelligence agencies and authorised for use in the public domain by those agencies.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Prime Minister how many of his staff retired on medical grounds due to mental health problems in the last year. [111957]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer my hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office (Mr. Alexander) gave him today.

  Older People
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the role of Cabinet-level champion for older people; and if he will make a statement. [121017]

  The Prime Minister
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions chairs the Cabinet Sub-Committee on Older People in co-ordinating the Government's policies affecting older people.

  The Government are committed to delivering public services to older people. This includes:
  Free NHS prescriptions and eye tests for anyone over 60;
  Free breast screening for women aged 50 to 65 being extended to all women up to the age of 70 by 2004;
  Winter fuel payments for everyone over 60, to provide help towards the extra costs of keeping warm in winter;
  The Warm Front scheme, previously known as the Home Energy Efficiency Grant, providing grant funding to people over 60 on disability or income-related benefits to assist with heating and insulation improvements to their homes;
  Local bus travel being made more affordable through half-fare minimum concessionary fares provision for pensioners;
  Free TV licences for anyone over 75.

  This activity builds on the action announced in the "Life Begins at 50" report in May 2000. The Department of Health is taking forward the National Service Framework for Older People and published a report on progress in March this year. An update on the active ageing agenda promoted in the "Winning the Generation Game" report is available on the Cabinet Office website. The Department for Work and Pensions published the consultation paper "Security, Simplicity and Choice" on working and saving for retirement and extending opportunities for older workers and has recently announced an action plan for taking this forward. The Age Positive campaign is addressing
  656W
  ageism in the workplace, to prepare for legislation in 2006. In October the new pension credit will offer a secure minimum income and savings incentive for millions of existing pensioners.

  Scottish Parliament
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Prime Minister which members of the Government were responsible for choosing the site of the Scottish Parliament when this matter was considered prior to the transfer of responsibilities to the Scottish Parliament Corporate Body. [119884]

  The Prime Minister
  Information relating to internal advice and decisions is not disclosed under Exemption 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement about central Government's involvement in planning the Scottish Parliament building prior to the transfer of responsibility to the Scottish Parliament Corporate Body. [119885]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government were responsible for decisions relating to the Scottish Parliament before 1 July 1999. Responsibility then transferred to the Scottish Parliament Corporate Body.

TRANSPORT

  Air Travel (Security)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent discussions he has had with his EU counterparts on security arrangements for international air travel. [120657]

  Mr. McNulty
  The UK initiated and has played a leading part in the development of the new EU Regulation on civil aviation security, and we continue to be very fully engaged with EU partners and the European Commission at all levels over international aviation security requirements and arrangements.

  Cycling
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received regarding(a) targets for increasing the volume of transport by bicycle and (b) attainment of those targets. [120906]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department receives regular representations about these issues from a broad range of cycling interests and we have set ourselves, as part of our Ten-Year Transport Plan, a target of trebling cycle trips by 2010 (based on 2000 figures).

  Driver Training
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) when he plans to report on the results of the consultation on his Department's document "Introducing A More Structured Approach to Learning to Drive"; and if he will make a statement; [121074]
  657W
  (2) how many submissions he received responding to his Department's consultation document "Introducing a More Structured Approach to Learning to Drive"; how many of those submissions included reference to advanced learning focused on driving safely on motorways; and if he will make a statement;[121075]

  (3) what representations he has received regarding the inclusion of motorway driving lessons in a revised approach to learning to drive; and if he will make a statement. [121076]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We are currently considering all the views expressed in the 320 responses to this consultation document and will announce the way forward as soon as possible. The consultation included a section on motorway training. A summary of the responses to the consultation will be published at the same time as an announcement is made and will be sent to all those who contributed.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many drivers involved in motorway traffic accidents in the last five years(a) have not taken a motorway driving lesson and (b) have taken a motorway driving lesson since passing their driving test; and if he will make a statement. [121077]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The information requested is not available. However, on-going Departmental research is considering the training undertaken by learner and novice drivers, and details of their driving experience and accidents in the first three years after the driving test has been passed.

  Euro Roadshow
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the events he plans to attend as part of the Government's euro roadshow. [121398]

  Mr. McNulty
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer from the Economic Secretary to the Treasury, given to the right hon. and Learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) of 20 June 2003,Official Report, columns 458–59W.

  M42
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the widening of the M42.[121291]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We are considering proposals for widening the M42 alongside other proposals emerging from the multi-modal studies and expect to make a statement before the summer recess.

  M6
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will estimate the cost to business in the last 12 months of congestion on the M6 motorway around Birmingham. [121112]

  Mr. Jamieson
  To obtain a measure of congestion—and the resultant costs—on individual motorway links consistent with most congestion indicators, it would be necessary to measure journey times and speeds as they vary hour-by-hour and day-by-day. Regular measurement of journey times at this level of detail has 658W
  not been carried out in the past, mainly because of the extremely high costs that would be involved. However, the opening of the Traffic Control Centre next year will greatly improve our knowledge of traffic conditions and will lead to comprehensive information on journey times and speeds being made generally available to the travelling public.

  Motorcycle Strategy
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what his policy is on(a) the inclusion of powered two-wheelers in the development of an integrated transport policy and (b) the development of a national motorcycle strategy. [R][121490]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government's White Paper on the future of transport recognised motorcycling has a role to play in an integrated transport policy. It stated that motorcycling can provide an alternative means of transport for many trips, bring benefits to the individual including widening employment opportunities, and may offer benefits for the environment and congestion. It advised local authorities to take account of the contribution motorcycling can make and to consider specific measures to assist motorcyclists.

  However the White Paper also acknowledged that the role of motorcycling in an integrated transport policy raises some important and complex issues. We have therefore established an Advisory Group on Motorcycling to address these issues. The key workstreams should be completed during 2004, when we intend to determine a strategy for motorcycling.

  Rail Safety
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made on major improvements to the incidence of slips and trips on the national rail network since 2001. [121244]

  Mr. McNulty
  [holding answer 23 June 2003]: The Health and Safety Executive (HSE's) Railway Inspectorate (HMRI) works with the Rail Safety and Standards Board (RSSB) the rail industry's own safety body, on a number of initiatives to reduce the risk of 'slip and trip' incidents.

  The HSE advises that provisional figures for 2002–03 show that compared with 2001–02 there has been an overall reduction of 4 per cent. in the number of 'slip and trip' injuries reported to the HSE on Britain's rail network.

  Rural Transport
  Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what funding has been made available to Lancashire county council to encourage new public transport provision in rural parts of the county.[120471]

  Mr. McNulty
  Lancashire received a total of £12.051 million for integrated transport measures as part of the 2003–4 transport settlement. Lancashire's Local Transport Plan includes a range of measures to enhance public transport provision in rural areas of the county. It is for Lancashire to spend the allocation in
  659W
  accordance with local priorities. £476,873 was allocated from the fifth round of the Rural Bus Challenge, Garstang Super 8 scheme.

  Traffic Congestion (School Run)
  Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action he is taking to deal with congestion caused by parents dropping their children off at schools in cars. [120456]

  Mr. McNulty
  We have asked local authorities to develop strategies for reducing car use on the journey to school as part of their local transport plans. We provide support through bursaries for local authorities to employ school travel plan co-ordinators, through a programme of free site specific advice from consultants, and through publication of best practice guides. We are currently working with colleagues in the Department for Education and Skills to explore new ways of tackling this issue.

CABINET OFFICE

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many new entrants to the Civil Service were employed in the Office in each of the last five years; and how many in each year were aged 50 or over.[119811]

  Entrants 2 April 1997 to 1 April 2002 by Department and age (permanent staff)

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  50+

  Other

  Total

  50+

  Other

  Total

  50+

  Other

  Total

  COI

  8

  65

  73

  4

  44

  48

  1

  54

  55

  Security and Intelligence Services

  8

  68

  76

  15

  239

  254

  15

  272

  287

  DCMS

  10

  93

  103

  6

  42

  48

  3

  41

  44

  MOD

  1,459

  7,450

  8,909

  1,333

  6,068

  7,401

  1,286

  7,101

  8,387

  DfES

  10

  103

  113

  29

  233

  262

  41

  475

  516

  Ofsted

  3

  28

  31

  6

  32

  38

  6

  67

  73

  Defra

  76

  747

  823

  86

  916

  1,002

  80

  721

  801

  Home Office

  42

  487

  529

  53

  760

  813

  146

  1,559

  1,705

  Charity Commission

  5

  29

  34

  1

  30

  31

  3

  56

  59

  HM Prison Service

  352

  3,400

  3,752

  301

  2,838

  3,139

  294

  2,845

  3,139

  DfID

  2

  41

  43

  5

  78

  83

  7

  72

  79

  Crown Prosecution Service

  15

  312

  327

  16

  355

  371

  16

  345

  361

  Legal Secretariat

  1

  1

  2

  0

  5

  5

  1

  1

  2

  Treasury Solicitors

  1

  24

  25

  4

  31

  35

  3

  55

  58

  LCD

  149

  567

  716

  174

  973

  1,147

  206

  1,289

  1,495

  HM Land Registry

  14

  344

  358

  16

  330

  346

  21

  342

  363

  Public Record Office

  12

  31

  43

  7

  31

  38

  6

  53

  59

  DTI

  49

  389

  438

  66

  502

  558

  47

  585

  632

  ACAS

  0

  23

  23

  0

  0

  0

  5

  43

  48

  ECGD

  3

  21

  24

  0

  7

  7

  1

  30

  31

  Office of Fair Trading

  2

  23

  25

  3

  22

  25

  0

  1

  1

  OFGAS

  0

  12

  12

  2

  32

  34

  3

  102

  105

  OFER

  2

  17

  19

  0

  21

  21

  0

  16

  16

  OFGEM

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  DTLR

  76

  803

  879

  79

  900

  979

  90

  1,313

  1,403

  Health and Safety Executive

  8

  134

  142

  11

  189

  200

  17

  253

  270

  OFWAT

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  26

  28

  OS

  7

  110

  117

  1

  107

  108

  3

  87

  90

  HM Treasury

  2

  51

  53

  1

  48

  49

  0

  37

  37

  National Investment and Loans Office

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  OGC

  1

  5

  6

  0

  16

  16

  0

  3

  3

  Customs and Excise

  74

  1,153

  1,227

  38

  586

  624

  31

  573

  604

  GAD

  0

  11

  11

  2

  15

  17

  0

  1

  1

  Inland Revenue

  302

  3,146

  3,448

  407

  4,185

  4,592

  597

  6,253

  6,850

  DNS

  2

  12

  14

  0

  10

  10

  1

  21

  22

  ONS

  24

  122

  146

  20

  165

  185

  21

  169

  190

  660W
  Mr. Alexander
  The figures for the Cabinet Office, based on headcount for the number of permanent staff, are as follows:

  50+

  Other

  Total

  1997–98

  14

  76

  90

  1998–99

  19

  62

  81

  1999–2000

  20

  129

  149

  2000–01

  28

  149

  177

  2001–02

  24

  153

  177

  The figures shown in the following tables represent the data reported to Mandate during the years from 1997–98 to 2001–02, based on headcount, for the number of permanent staff in each department. The figures shown are the overall figures for Departments including any Departmental Agencies. The Tables will also be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  The Mandate database consists of data collected electronically from Departments and agencies and covers about 98 per cent. of civil servants in Great Britain. Some Departments and agencies are unable to supply data to Mandate for technical reasons and provide summary data instead.

  The figures are based on the Departments as they were after the structural changes made following the 2001 election.
  661W

  Entrants 2 April 1997 to 1 April 2002 by Department and age (permanent staff)

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  50+

  Other

  Total

  50+

  Other

  Total

  50+

  Other

  Total

  Registry of Friendly Societies

  0

  5

  5

  0

  5

  5

  0

  8

  8

  Royal Mint

  0

  53

  53

  3

  61

  64

  1

  101

  102

  DWP

  500

  5,564

  6,064

  968

  11,524

  12,492

  1,274

  13,959

  15,233

  Northern Ireland Office

  1

  11

  12

  0

  19

  19

  2

  19

  21

  Privy Council Office

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  2

  2

  Scottish Executive

  66

  706

  772

  79

  988

  1,067

  61

  774

  835

  Crown Office and PFS

  3

  45

  48

  3

  51

  54

  12

  117

  129

  General Register Office [Scotland]

  0

  5

  5

  0

  13

  13

  1

  10

  11

  National Archive for Scotland

  0

  0

  0

  4

  8

  12

  3

  14

  17

  Office SOS for Scotland

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  2

  Welsh Office

  6

  59

  65

  21

  110

  131

  30

  267

  297

  OHMCI

  1

  5

  6

  2

  7

  9

  3

  15

  18

  Wales Office

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2000–01

  2001–02

  50+

  Other

  Total

  50+

  Other

  Total

  COI

  8

  59

  67

  3

  53

  56

  Security and Intelligence Services

  18

  262

  280

  13

  223

  236

  DCMS

  6

  46

  52

  3

  50

  53

  MOD

  1,307

  6,159

  7,466

  1,157

  5,050

  6,207

  DfES

  44

  462

  506

  36

  323

  359

  Ofsted

  15

  80

  95

  69

  347

  416

  Defra

  132

  1,110

  1,242

  79

  857

  936

  Home Office

  248

  3,418

  3,666

  206

  2,134

  2,340

  Charity Commission

  5

  67

  72

  5

  55

  60

  HM Prison Service

  296

  2,179

  2,475

  357

  2471

  2,828

  DfID

  7

  94

  101

  9

  92

  101

  Crown Prosecution Service

  18

  260

  278

  70

  907

  977

  Legal Secretariat

  0

  0

  0

  2

  2

  4

  Treasury Solicitors

  2

  48

  50

  3

  88

  91

  LCD

  442

  1,177

  1,619

  242

  1,149

  1,391

  HM Land Registry

  23

  360

  383

  39

  550

  589

  Public Record Office

  11

  83

  94

  9

  87

  96

  DTI

  110

  666

  776

  112

  843

  955

  ACAS

  11

  34

  45

  9

  28

  37

  ECGD

  1

  45

  46

  3

  18

  21

  Office of Fair Trading

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  OFGAS

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  OFER

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  OFGEM

  4

  49

  53

  2

  51

  53

  DTLR

  121

  861

  982

  140

  1,046

  1,186

  Health and Safety Executive

  16

  279

  295

  30

  381

  411

  OFWAT

  6

  45

  51

  2

  39

  41

  OS

  13

  125

  138

  5

  104

  109

  HM Treasury

  0

  0

  0

  4

  55

  59

  National Investment and Loans Office

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  3

  OGC

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Customs and Excise

  49

  1,067

  1,116

  44

  990

  1,034

  GAD

  2

  13

  15

  2

  12

  14

  Inland Revenue

  432

  4,259

  4,691

  541

  4,659

  5,200

  DNS

  1

  34

  35

  1

  23

  24

  ONS

  40

  410

  450

  21

  259

  280

  Registry of Friendly Societies

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Royal Mint

  2

  74

  76

  1

  7

  8

  DWP

  969

  8,729

  9,698

  1,902

  16,523

  18,425

  Northern Ireland Office

  4

  55

  59

  2

  24

  26

  Privy Council Office

  1

  1

  2

  3

  9

  12

  Scottish Executive

  52

  686

  738

  77

  963

  1,040

  Crown Office and PFS

  7

  108

  115

  14

  134

  148

  General Register Office [Scotland]

  5

  14

  19

  0

  10

  10

  National Archive for Scotland

  5

  15

  20

  1

  15

  16

  Office SOS for Scotland

  1

  13

  14

  1

  11

  12

  Welsh Office

  44

  354

  398

  33

  195

  228

  OHMCI

  1

  1

  2

  3

  8

  11

  Wales Office

  0

  2

  2

  0

  0

  0

  662W

  Departmental Ministers
  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many Ministers there were in his Department in each year since 1996.[120987]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Cabinet Office produces the publication List of Ministerial Responsibilities listing Ministers by department. Copies for each year since 1996 are available in the Library of the House.

  A revised version to take account of recent ministerial changes will be available shortly in both electronic and paper form.

  E-Government
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what studies he is undertaking into the feasibility of delivering e-government services through mobile phones; and if he will make a statement. [121207]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Government's overall Channels Strategy, encourages public sector organisations to use a mix of electronic channels including mobile devices to deliver high quality government services to citizens efficiently and cost effectively.

  Figures show that 75 per cent. of the population owns a mobile phone. Its near ubiquity is the principal reason Government are keen to explore the potential of mobile communications.

  The office of the e-envoy has recently commissioned a study on how mobile communications might play a part in the e-government agenda. This study will inform the updated channels framework which is due to be published in the spring of 2004.

  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what studies he is undertaking and what action he is taking to encourage the private sector to develop e-government services; and if he will make a statement. [121208]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Government have a wide engagement with the private sector to develop e-government services.

  The use of private sector ICT products and services to develop and deliver e-government services is well established. The Office of Government Commerce (OGC) runs a programme of work to foster the effective and efficient procurement of products and services to meet Government's needs.

  Assessment trials of the common IT vocabulary (known as XML) are underway to find the most effective way to allow buyers' and suppliers' computers, running different procurement software packages, to 'talk to each other'. This is a joint initiative from the OGC and the Business Applications Software Developers Association (BASDA). Importantly, the move will enable easier access to the government marketplace for Small and Medium Enterprises.

  Also, as part of the e-government delivery programme, the Office of the e-envoy is responsible for the e-government intermediaries policy. This policy looks towards creating a mixed economy where government, private and voluntary sectors come together to deliver e-government services that better
  664W
  meet the demands of the citizen. A public consultation is currently underway and will conclude on 21 August 2003: http://www.e-envoy.gov.uk/intermediaries.

  The e-envoy also runs an industry consultation group which looks into issues affecting the development of e-government services, drawing in industry views.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many of his staff retired on medical grounds due to mental health problems in the last year. [111967]

  Mr. Alexander
  Between May 2002 and April 2003, the Civil Service Pension Scheme Medical Adviser assessed 241 scheme members as meeting the criteria for medical retirement for reasons attributable to mental ill-health. The vast majority of civil servants belong to the Civil Service Pension Scheme, and there are currently more than 500,000 active members.

  Mental ill-health in the context of this answer includes a non-exhaustive range of more specific diagnoses, including for example reactive depression, anxiety, psychosis and schizophrenia.

  Although data on retirements due to mental ill-health can be broken down by individual civil service employer, doing so where the employer has very few cases of this kind runs the risk of revealing the identity of the individuals concerned. In line with exemption 12 of the "Code of Practice on Access to Government Information", such disclosure would constitute or could facilitate an unwarranted invasion of privacy.

  Paper Supplies
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office pursuant to his answer of 23 January 2003,Official Report, column 438W, on paper supplies, whether any of the paper or paper products supplied to his Department by Premier Paper are supplied by Stora Enso's Veitsiluoto Mill in Finland; and what assessment has been made of whether this paper contains (a) timber from old growth forests and (b) timber that may have been logged illegally in Russia. [117546]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Cabinet Office is party to a framework contract for the provision of paper for printed publications for which the Premier Paper Group is one of four suppliers. The contract is managed by the Department for Transport. I refer the hon. Member to the first paragraph of the answer given to her by the Member for Plymouth, Devonport on 18 June 2003,Official Report, column 224W.

  Service Delivery (Derbyshire)
  Judy Mallaber
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will ensure that the delivery and planning of services in(a) Amber Valley and (b) Derbyshire by government departments and public agencies are not distorted by the fact that many areas in Derbyshire do not have DE postcodes. [120096]

  Mr. Timms
  I have been asked to reply.
  665W
  The postcode is a sorting and routing instruction for Royal Mail staff, and its sole purpose in the postal context is to help to identify the fastest and most efficient route for the transmission of mail to individual customers. The allocation of a postcode to each district and individual address is thus linked to Royal Mail's network of sorting and delivery offices and has never been intended to signify a geographically definitive address in terms of local authority or any other administrative boundaries.

SCOTLAND

  Energy White Paper
  Miss Begg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the Minister for Energy to discuss the implications for Scotland of the Energy White Paper. [120213]

  Mrs. McGuire
  I am a member of the Cabinet ministerial committee on energy policy which considered the Energy White Paper and also of the ministerial group forming part of the sustainable energy policy network. This network, which will help us achieve the commitments set out in the White Paper, was announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on 4 June 2003 and the first meeting will take place this Thursday.

  Universal Bank
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the impact on Scottish pensioners and benefit recipients of the exclusion of leading Scottish banks from the Post Office universal bank. [120214]

  Mrs. McGuire
  All leading Scottish banks have made their basic bank accounts accessible at post offices, and many have now extended these arrangements to current account holders.

  The Government's policy is to extend the choices available to benefit recipients, in respect of where and when they collect their money.

  Fisheries
  Sir Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the impact of EU fishing policy on the Scottish fishing industry. [120216]

  Mrs. McGuire
  The effects of the Common Fisheries Policy are regularly monitored by the Fisheries Departments.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions he has had with ministerial colleagues on the Scottish fishing industry. [120219]

  Mrs. McGuire
  Scotland Office Ministers have discussed fishing-related issues with their ministerial colleagues on a number of occasions. The Scotland Office will continue to be represented on the Ministerial Steering Group for the fisheries study commissioned earlier this year by the Prime Minister.

  Structural Funds
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on recent discussions he has had on(a) the future level of structural funds in Scotland and (b) how the funds will be distributed. [120217]

  Mr. Darling
  I have regular discussions with ministerial colleagues and others on a range of subjects.

  Postal Services
  Mr. Alan Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions he has held with ministerial colleagues regarding(a) post offices and (b) postal services in Scotland. [120218]

  Mrs. McGuire
  I am in regular contact with ministerial colleagues in the DTI about a variety of issues relating to postal services in Scotland including the programme of support for the maintenance of the rural post office network.

  Tax Credits
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people in Scotland have experienced delays in receiving the(a) child and (b) working tax credits. [120220]

  Mrs. McGuire
  Well over three-quarters of the families that are expected to receive the new tax credits are benefiting from them already.

  Euro
  Mr. Joyce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the composition of the Scottish committee for euro preparations. [120221]

  Rosemary McKenna
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with Scottish business leaders on the potential benefits for Scottish trade of joining the euro. [120222]

  Mr. Darling
  I refer my hon. Friends to the answer I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz).

  Holyrood
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with the Scottish Executive about the role of central Government in the Holyrood building project. [120223]

  Mr. Darling
  I met the First Minister on 16 June 2003 and discussed a range of issues.

ADVOCATE-GENERAL

  Devolution
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Advocate-General on how many devolution issues she has advised since 1 June 2003. [120228]

  The Advocate-General for Scotland
  Since 1 June 2003, 21 devolution issues have been intimated to me.
  667W
  Mr. Alan Reid
  To ask the Advocate-General what devolution issues she has dealt with since 20 May 2003. [120229]

  The Advocate-General for Scotland
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply I gave earlier to my hon. Friend the Member of Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell).

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  Devolution
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what the Secretary of State's responsibilities are in relation to devolution in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [121042]

  Mr. Leslie
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs made clear last week, he is 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.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what recent discussions he has had on the effect of the Government of Wales Act 1998 on the office of the Secretary of State for Wales in respect of devolving further powers; and if he will make a statement. [121033]

  Mr. Leslie
  None. Section 22 of the Government of Wales Act 1998 provides for the transfer of ministerial functions to the National Assembly for Wales.

  Speaker (House of Lords)
  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's plans for providing for an elected Speaker for the House of Lords. [121043]

  Mr. Leslie
  Replacing the Lord Chancellor as Speaker of the House of Lords is a matter for the House to determine.

  Scotland Act 1998
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs if he will make a statement on the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affair's role under the Scotland Act 1998 in relation to elections in Scotland. [121044]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs has no functions under the Scotland Act 1998.

  Judicial Appointments
  Sir Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs if he will make a statement on the Lord Chancellor's responsibilities in relation to judicial appointments. [121045]

  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what the Lord Chancellor's functions are in respect of the appointment of judges. [121049]
  668W
  Mr. Leslie
  I refer the hon. Members to the answer I gave today to the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes).

  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what consultation the Department intends to undertake on the proposals relating to judicial appointments. [121046]

  Mr. Leslie
  I announced by way of written statement to the House on 19 June 2003 that the Government will consult widely on how best to take forward our proposal for a new Judicial Appointments Commission. We intend to publish a consultation paper on 14 July 2003. The consultation period will run until November 2003.

  Contingency Fee Litigation
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what steps the Lord Chancellor is taking to reduce the cost of contingency fee litigation. [121047]

  Mr. Lammy
  The cost of resolving all types of litigation should be reasonable and proportionate, whether funded by a no-win-no-fee agreement or in any other way. The courts have considerable powers to limit costs and the Government are working with the judiciary, the legal and insurance sectors and others to introduce fixed costs for certain types of cases, and a simpler conditional fee agreement regime and improved guidelines on success fees levels in personal injury litigation.

  Lord Chancellor
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what plans the Lord Chancellor has for the future exercise of his functions relating to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. [121048]

  Mr. Lammy
  My noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor proposes to exercise his functions as the Privy Counsellor with particular responsibility for the Crown Dependencies in the same way as his predecessors. I shall be the Minister with responsibility for the conduct as necessary of Islands' business within Whitehall.

  Queen's Counsel
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs if he will abolish the QC system; and if he will make a statement. [120009]

  Mr. Leslie
  I refer my hon. Friend to the response given by my noble and learned Friend the Secretary of State and Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer of Thoroton, on 16 June 2003 in response to a question from Earl Ferrers,Official Report, House of Lords, column 522. I also refer my hon. Friend to the written answer given by my noble and learned Friend on 19 June 2003, Official Report, House of Lords, column WA131, as to the timetable for consultation on this issue.

  Coroner's Office
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs, what proposals he has for the Review of the Office of Coroner. [120242]

  Mr. Leslie
  We have received the Report of the Fundamental Review of Death Certification and Coroner Services. The Government will publish a response to this Report once Ministers have considered its 122 recommendations alongside the second report of the Shipman Inquiry, which is due later in the summer.

  Queen's Counsel
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs, what proposals the Secretary of State has for the future of the Queen's Counsel system. [120241]

  Mr. Lammy
  I refer my hon. Friend to the response given by my noble and learned Friend the Secretary of State and Lord Chancellor on 16 June 2003,Official Report, column 522, in response to a question from Earl Ferrers as to whether Her Majesty's Government proposed to discontinue making recommendations for the appointment of Queen's Counsel. I also refer my hon. Friend to the written answer given by my noble and learned Friend on 19 June 2003, Official Report, column 131W, as to the timetable for consultation on this issue among others.

  Writs
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many writs were issued in 2002. [120828]

  Mr. Leslie
  During 2002, there were 35,919 claims and proceedings made in the Chancery Division of the High Court and 18,624 made in the Queen's Bench Division.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

  Programming Bills
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Leader of the House, what further plans he has for the system of programming of Bills. [121032]

  Mr. Woolas
  My right hon. Friend has no plans at present to change the arrangements for programming of Bills, though he would be pleased to receive any positive proposals on this matter.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Leader of the House, what plans he has to bring forward proposals for changes to the arrangements for answering Parliamentary Questions; and if he will make a statement. [121034]

  Mr. Woolas
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to bring forward proposals for changes to the arrangements for answering Parliamentary Questions. The changes introduced at the beginning of the year appear to be operating well.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Illegal Timber Imports
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she is taking to negotiate an EU ban on the import of illegal timber; and if she will make a statement. [118765]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government have shown leadership in its strong encouragement of the European Forest Law Enforcement, Governance and Trade (FLEGT) process. The European Commission published a proposed FLEGT action plan on 21 May. The plan includes consideration of new EU legislative regulations to address imports of illegally logged timber in a way that is consistent with EU obligations to the World Trade Organisation. We are now working with the European Commission to develop regulations that will enable illegally logged timber to be refused entry to member states. Successful implementation of these proposals would depend on the co-operation of countries that produce and export timber. The UK raised the issue of the proposed action plan at Environment Council on 13 June with the aim of encouraging the incoming Italian Presidency to facilitate a full discussion at an early time and of focussing the attention of other member states on this important issue.

  Bovine TB
  Sir Michael Spicer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she expects to publish the results of the Krebs research into bovine TB in badgers and cattle. [120204]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Independent Scientific Group on Cattle Tuberculosis has recently advised Ministers that the full set of trial data should be gathered by the end of 2006. I expect the Group to publish its final report, summarising the trial results, shortly thereafter.

  Bushmeat
  Mr. Laxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action her Department is taking to reduce the trade in bushmeat. [121062]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Since March 2002, the Department has had in place a series of measures designed to tackle the disease risks posed by illegal imports of all types of meat and animal products. The number of illegal imports seized in 2002–03 rose to three times the number made in the previous year, reflecting increased enforcement activity and better evidence-based targeting.

  Additional resources for the coming years, together with the improved enforcement and intelligence capability provided by HM Customs and Excise, should ensure that this work is consolidated and built upon. HM Customs are setting up four mobile detection teams

  671W
  to target meat and animal products, and will be increasing the number of detector dog teams to six during the current financial year.

  Defra are also working with the Food Standards Agency and HM Customs to understand what drives the demand for exotic meats and animal products in the UK.

  In addition, under the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES) the UK played a key role in setting up a Working Group of Central African countries, which is due to report to the next Conference of the Parties in October 2004. We expect its recommendations to provide a valuable resource for all the countries of the region, in aiding their efforts to harmonise and strengthen local controls on the bushmeat trade.

  Coastal Protection
  Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs who is responsible for the long-term monitoring and management of compensatory sites for coastal protection purposes. [120462]

  Mr. Morley
  The authority that issues a consent for coastal defence works, which require compensatory measures to address a negative impact on nature conservation interests, will also have the responsibility for ensuring that adequate compensation is provided and maintained. In most instances the consenting authority will be either the local planning authority or the Environment Agency.

  Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what representations she has received from Lancaster city council regarding progress with the Morecambe Coastal Defence Scheme; [120463]

  (2) if she will make a statement on progress with the Morecambe Coastal Protection Scheme. [120464]

  Mr. Morley
  Defra provides funding for coastal defence schemes which meet specified criteria, but responsibility for deciding which projects to promote and their timing rests with local authorities. Defra has paid Lancaster city council some £10.5 million in grant for the first five phases of their coastal defence works at Morecambe. The council has yet to submit applications for funding of further phases of work there. However, I am fully aware that the council are concerned about the time it is taking them to identify habitat compensatory measures for the proposed works as required by the Conservation (Natural Habitats etc) Regulations 1994. Defra is seeking to assist the council by grant aiding studies to identify possible compensatory sites.

  Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what meetings have taken place between the Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and English Nature regarding the Morecambe Coastal Protection Scheme. [120465]
  672W
  Mr. Morley
  There have been many exchanges over the years between interested bodies, including Defra and English Nature, on the various phases of Lancaster city council's Morecambe Coastal Protection Scheme. Most recently meetings were held between the council, Defra, English Nature and the Environment Agency on 18 February and 21 May 2003 with the purpose of clarifying the steps necessary for the council to progress the next phases of the scheme.

  Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the effect on flooding in Morecambe of delay to the Coastal Protection Scheme. [120466]

  Mr. Morley
  Responsibility for assessing flood risk rests with local operating authorities rather than Defra. However I understand that the Environment Agency recently undertook a strategic flood risk assessment of their north-west region and concluded that Morecambe was one of the highest flood risk locations. No doubt Lancaster city council are taking this into account in progressing their proposed coastal defence works. For our part, Defra will consider any applications for funding such works as speedily as possible as soon as they are received.

  Cotswold Conservation Board
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 9 June 2003,Official Report, column 579W, how many parishes in the proposed Cotswolds Conservation Board fall within the Cotswold district council area; what the total number of parishes within the Board's area is; and whether the proposed eight groupings reflect the proportion between the two. [120865]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  All parishes that are in part or totally within the boundaries of the Cotswolds AONB would contribute to appointing the 8 parish members to the proposed Cotswolds AONB Conservation Board. At the moment we understand that 309 parishes will qualify.

  There are 103 parishes that will be covered by the Board and are within the Cotswold district council administrative area. This equates to roughly one third of the total number of parishes covered by the Board. Cotswold district council parishes are shared between four of the eight regional groupings that would appoint parish members to a Cotswolds Conservation Board. In these groupings, they are in the majority in two, and are significantly represented in the other two.

  Therefore, it is likely that between two and four parish appointees to the Board coming from Cotswold district council parishes. Cotswold district council parishes could have between 25 per cent. and 50 per cent. of the parish appointments. However, it must be emphasized that the intention is that a parish appointee will represent Cotswold AONB parishes in general, not just their parish or their regional grouping.

  Dairy Farmers
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what
  673W
  representations she has received about the non-retrospective nature of the reference date for calculating compensatory direct payment to dairy farmers; and if she will make a statement. [120264]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Several organisations, including the NFU, have made representations on this issue. We have raised it in discussions on the proposal in Brussels, arguing that it has encouraged speculation.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will introduce measures to ensure that dairy sector producers receive direct payments based on the whole of the amount of milk quota held on 31 March 2004 under the single farm payment scheme. [120267]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The proposal is already that the payment would be based on the net quota holding on 31 March 2004.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how the reference amount under the single farm payment scheme for dairy farmers, will be applied if the dairy farmer had no registered hectares during the reference period. [120268]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Under the Commission proposals, if the dairy farmer had no eligible land to which a payment could be attached, it would become a "special payment" and subject to certain conditions.

  Departmental Veterinary Surgeons
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many veterinary surgeons are employed by her Department. [120525]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The number of veterinary surgeons employed by the Department as at April 2003 is 493.

  £

  Source

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Food From Britain1

  55,289

  45,084

  67,000

  222,319

  121,458

  ERDP2

  —

  —

  —

  301,000

  1,401,000

  SEEDA3

  —

  30,000

  90,000

  20,000

  55,000

  1 The figures include funding under the Countryside Agency's Eat the View project (2000–01 to 2002–03), the Department's Foot and Mouth Recovery fund (2001–02) and start-up funding for the regional food group (1998–99 to 2000–01).

  2 This covers funding under the Processing and Marketing Grant (PMG) Scheme and Rural Enterprise Scheme (RES)—Marketing of Quality Agricultural Products.

  3 Includes funding to support the marketing of local produce and support for the red meat sector. It does not include the £840,000 available for the development of food related enterprise hubs (as follows).

  For the future, as part of the Department's regional food strategy, Food From Britain will receive £1,260,000 per annum for this year and for the next two from Defra for the promotion of English regional food and drink. In the first year of the programme, the South East Food Group Partnership will receive £120,000 to implement a series of regional level activities in support of the overall regional food strategy. Under the ERDP, the following sums have been allocated for projects in the south east under the RES and the PMG: £1,468,000 (2003–04), £1,647,000 (2004–05) and £1,771,000 (2005–06). In addition, small on-farm food processing

  Environmental Targets
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has received regarding(a) environmental targets not yet met and (b) the attainment of those targets. [120897]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department receives a great many representations on these and other aspects of environmental policy, for example, the Efra Select Committee hearing on 18 June 2003 looked at the Department's performance against its Public Service Agreement targets as reported in the Departmental Report.

  The Department has published its environmental Public Service Agreement targets (along with all other Public Service Agreement targets) in the Departmental Report—(ref Cm 5919), which can be found at: www.defra.gov.uk/corporate/deprep/default.htm

  The Report outlines our progress to date in meeting these targets and sets out a wide range of actions necessary to meet them.

  Financial Support (South-east)
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what financial support she has given to the south-east in each of the last five years; and what she plans to give in the next two years. [119658]

  Alun Michael
  [holding answer 16 June 2003]: Direct support from the Department to the regional food sector falls under two main areas: support for the development of the sector as a whole via Food From Britain (FFB) and through schemes under the England Rural Development Programme (ERDP). In addition to this, financial support is also available from the South East England Development Agency (SEEDA) to which the Department provides funds. Over the last five years, financial support for food from the south east was as follows:

  projects are among the wide range of activities that are eligible for support within the budget allocated to the Farm Diversification category of the RES.

  SEEDA is also supporting the development of two enterprise hubs linked to the food sector with £840,000 over a three-year period from autumn 2002. It is also developing plans to make available a substantial amount of funding over the next three years (2003–04 to 2005–06) to support the development of the local food sector in the south east to implement aspects of the Regional Economic Strategy and the Delivery Plan for Defra's Strategy for Sustainable Farming and Food.

  Flood and Coastal Defence
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent reports she has received under her Department's high level targets for flood and coastal defence; and if she will make a statement.[120779]

  Mr. Morley
  We expect to receive a number of reports on High Level Targets from the Environment Agency in the coming weeks. Once received, I will place copies of these reports, which are designed to assist in delivery of the Government's policy aims and objectives for flood and coastal defence, in the House Libraries. These reports relate to:

  Target 2—Flood warnings;

  Target 3—Exercises and emergency plans;

  Target 5—Flood defence inspections and assets at risk;

  Target 10—Water Level Management Plans.

  GM Crops
  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the(a) accuracy and (b) reliability of information submitted by GM consent applicants; and what her policy is on where liability should lie for damage to (i) human, (ii) animal and (iii) environmental health of GM releases.[119077]

  Mr. Morley
  The legislation requires all applications for consent to release or market genetically modified organisms (GMOs) to be supported by a dossier of information about the GMO and its properties and an assessment of the risk to human health and the environment from the proposed release. This information is scrutinised by officials for compliance with relevant legislation. Scientific assessment of the dossiers is carried out by independent experts; the Advisory Committee on Releases to the Environment, the Advisory Committee on Animal Feedingstuffs, the Advisory Committee on Novel Foods and Processes, the Food Standards Agency, the statutory nature conservation agencies and the Health and Safety Executive. Consent to release would only be issued if these advisors are satisfied as regards the reliability and accuracy of the information provided by the applicant.

  As regards liability, approval for a GMO release will only be given if the relevant authorities are satisfied that all appropriate measures are being taken to avoid adverse effects on human health and the environment. There are specific provisions in Part VI of the Environmental Protection Act giving powers to the courts and the Secretary of State to remedy harm that results from the commission of an offence. Otherwise currently there are no specific liability provisions in relation to GM releases. Depending on the circumstances, however, a claim for redress could be made through the courts under existing general legal principles. The independent Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission is preparing a report to Government on GM crop liability. We will consider this issue further in the light of that report.

  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which(a) organisations and (b) individuals were invited by
  676W
  her to debate the future of GM crops in the South West on Saturday 7 June in Taunton; and how they were chosen.[119653]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 16 June 2003]: GM Nation?—the public debate on GM issues—is being run by an independent Steering Board at arm's length from Government. The regional public launch events, such as the one in Taunton on 7 June, were open to all—no specific organisations or individuals were invited. The date, time and venue were publicised in press releases on 13 May and 3 June and also at the launch of the debate on 3 June. The information was also available on the website and received widespread media coverage. Individuals who wished to attend were asked to register in advance and tickets were made available on a first come, first served basis. The events involved facilitated active participation in small discussion groups, which limited their overall size. Two sessions were held at Taunton in response to demand.

  GM Food
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much was spent by consumers on genetically modified foodstuffs in each of the last 10 years, broken down by type of foodstuff.[119147]

  Mr. Morley
  Official statistics on consumers expenditure do not separately identify expenditure on genetically modified foodstuffs.

  Illegal Meat Imports
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on responsibility for security at ports and airports to counter illegal imports of meat. [121271]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 23 June 2003]: Following the recommendations of the Cabinet Office Review of enforcement structures which reported in November 2002, responsibility for anti-smuggling activities was transferred to HM Customs and Excise on 11 April. Defra retains responsibility for policy on illegal imports of meat and animal products.

  Marine Resources
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in what ways the exclusive competence allocated to the EU by the draft constitution over marine resources differs from the CFP's competence; and how it affects the(a) six and (b) 12 mile limit. [117724]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The draft EU Constitutional Treaty is in our view a clarification of existing EU competence with regards to the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). There is no extension of competence, and the six and twelve mile limits are unaffected.

  Non-native Fauna
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list Non-native fauna identified by her Department as needing to be(a) controlled and (b) eradicated; what estimate she has made of the numbers in each case;

  677W
  and what estimates she has made of the annual cost of (i) control and (ii) eradication in the next three years. [119146]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Department is aware of a number of Non-native species which can impact on native biodiversity but has not compiled a comprehensive list of Non-native fauna proposed to be controlled or eradicated. Issues in relation to individual species are considered on their merits, and control programmes may also be taken forward by the conservation agencies, other government departments, non-governmental organisations and others to address specific impacts. The devolved administrations can also take action in other parts of the UK. Environmental and economic effects of the presence of the species, the relative cost and likely success of control, are all important considerations.

  I recognise that the problems caused by invasive Non-native species can be serious. The recent Review of Non-native Species Policy recommended that Government develop a comprehensive system to assess risks from Non-native species, and also policies with respect to management and control of Non-native species present or newly arrived in the wild, and operational capacity to implement these. The Review's report, available in the House Library, also gives indicative control costs for some invasive Non-native species. This is a complex and wide-ranging issue and we will be considering the review's report carefully in developing, in liaison with the Devolved Administrations, the Government's strategy to take this forward. There will be public consultation later this year.

  In respect of species and organisms currently identified to be eradicated, action is being taken by Defra's plant health service to eradicate some introduced plant pests, including the potato brown rot bacterium from watercourses in eastern England, Phytophthora ramorum (the pathogen causing sudden death of oak trees in California) from nursery stock, and the insect pests Bemisia tabaci and Liriomyza huidobrensis from outbreaks in glasshouses. Contingency plans for possible outbreaks of Karnal bunt of wheat, potato ring rot and Colorado beetle are currently being drawn up or revised. Also, on the 3 March 2003 I made a written statement to the House stating that the Government agreed in principle to the eradication of the North American ruddy duck, 3 March 2003, Official Report, column 71WS. However, before a decision is made on whether to move to eradication the Department has commissioned further research to refine control methods over the next 15 months at a cost of approximately £250,000.

  Pesticides
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the regulations governing use of pesticides. [120538]

  Alun Michael
  The Government's primary aim when it comes to pesticides is the protection of people and the environment. Pesticides are therefore strictly regulated in this country under national and EU rules and we have effective controls on pesticide residues on imported and home-grown produce. Moreover a gradual transition is already underway to an EC system of regulation which,678W
  in addition to safeguarding people and the environment like the UK's national regulations, is aimed at achieving consistent standards between Member States. However, I am advised that our national regime is quite robust enough to protect people and the environment until the EU system is fully up and running.

  Ritually Slaughtered Meat
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much ritually slaughtered meat was exported from the United Kingdom in each of the last five years. [120281]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  [holding answer 19 June 2003]: Official overseas trade statistics do not separately identify ritually slaughtered meat and therefore the information requested is not available.

  Sustainable Development (TUC Committee)
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs who she has appointed to co-chair the Trades Union Committee on Sustainable Development. [120791]

  Mr. Morley
  The Trade Union Advisory Committee on Sustainable Development has been jointly chaired by a Defra Minister and John Edmonds, until recently General Secretary of the GMB Union. Mr. Edmonds will be stepping down as co-chair at the next meeting of TUSDAC and arrangements for a successor are being considered by the TUC.

  Tourism
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proportion of(a) the Brecon Beacons, (b) the Norfolk Broads, (c) Dartmoor, (d) Snowdonia, (e) Exmoor, (f) the Lake District, (g) Loch Lomond and the Trossachs, (h) the North York Moors, (i) Northumberland, (j) the Peak District, (k) the Pembrokeshire Coast and (l) the Yorkshire Dales is given over to agriculture; and what the agricultural products was in each case in the last year for which figures are available. [119145]

  Alun Michael
  The total agricultural area (as at June 2002) and the total area of each specified National Park in England is shown in the following table. National Parks in Scotland and Wales fall under the jurisdiction of the devolved authorities concerned.

  National Park

  Total area of National Park (Sq km)

  Total area of agriculture (Sq km)

  Agricultural area as percentage of total area

  (b) The Broads

  303

  175.6

  57.9

  (c) Dartmoor

  954

  481.4

  50.5

  (e) Exmoor

  693

  510.1

  73.6

  (f) The Lake District

  2,292

  1,268.6

  55.3

  (h) The North York Moors

  1,432

  781.2

  54.5

  (i) Northumberland

  1,049

  734.4

  70.0

  (j) The Peak District

  1,438

  1,139.9

  79.3

  (l) The Yorkshire Dales

  1,773

  1,210.8

  68.3

  Sources:

  1. The Association of National Park Authorities, www.anpa.gov.uk

  2. Yorkshire Dales National Park, www.yorkshiredales.org.uk

  3. The June 2002 Census of Agriculture and Horticulture.
  679W
  Agricultural output for each National Park in England can be found at the internet link:

  http://farmstats.defra.gov.uk/cs/farmstats_data/MAPS/ interactive_maps/natpark_map. Asp

  Voluntary Organisations
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what funding programmes are operated by her Department to support voluntary organisations working with young people; and what the level of support has been in each of the last three years. [120534]

  Alun Michael
  Defra funds a wide variety of voluntary organisation which work with young people but it is difficult to separate out specific expenditure within funding across all the department's programmes. Much of the work done with young people is carried out as part of broader programmes of work that also target other groups. Because of this it is not possible to rapidly provide a precise breakdown of support to voluntary organisations working with young people. Other

  Table 1

  Funding programme 2001/02

  Total funding 2002 (£)

  Number of grants 2002

  Average grant (£)2002

  Total funding 2001(£)

  Number of grants 2001

  Average grant (£)2001

  The Rural Stress—Action Plan

  300,000

  3

  100,000

  597,288

  4

  149,322

  Nat Federation of Young Farmers

  66,000

  1

  —

  68,000

  2

  34,000

  National Energy Action

  943,335

  1

  —

  850,000

  1

  —

  ENCAMS

  3,876,000

  1

  —

  3,542,000

  1

  —

  Farming and Wildlife Advisory Group

  448,357

  4

  112,089

  284,000

  1

  —

  Wildlife and Countryside Research Programme

  219,027

  6

  36,505

  92,242

  3

  30,747

  Environmental Action Fund

  4,115,600

  92

  44,735

  4,187,525

  142

  29,489

  Programme Development Fund

  10,572

  10

  1,057

  11,318

  4

  2,830

  Countryside agency schemes

  8,677,614

  501

  370,009

  8,935,035

  418

  129,510

  Charity Match Funding (FMD)

  16,642,363

  55

  302,588

  1—

  1—

  —

  English Nature schemes

  3,613,961

  48

  476,671

  1,701,689

  70

  22,290

  Totals

  38,912,829

  722

  —

  20,269,097

  646

  —

  1 No previous

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  A400M
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to her answer of 3 June,Official Report, column 319W, on the A400M, when the Government was approached to provide financial assistance to Rolls-Royce, and by whom; if she will list the parties involved in the discussion to provide such assistance; when the decision was made to provide a grant to Rolls-Royce, subject to authorisation procedures; and who made that decision. [118839]

  Jacqui Smith
  This department has held an ongoing dialogue with Rolls-Royce over the provision of engines for the A400M.

  Europrop International formally approached DTI requesting HMG support for Rolls-Royce as UK's partner in Europrop International at the end of April. Following close discussions between Rolls-Royce, Ministry of Defence and DTI officials, we felt able to issue a letter of intent to Rolls-Royce on 4 May 2003, indicating a willingness, subject to the usual
  680W
  work—particularly mainstream work with young people in rural communities—is funded by other Government departments.

  There are three specific strands of finance which are targeted particularly at young people. They are:

  (1) The Environmental Action Fund which helps voluntary groups in England working to promote sustainable development. The majority of projects involve young people to some extent and in 2003–03 the involvement of young people is a major component of projects totalling £1,023,664.

  (2) ENCAMS. Defra funds the environmental charity ENCAMS which is the parent organisation of the Tidy Britain Group, for work on litter, waste and local community initiatives in England. ENCAMS funding for youth related programmes and campaigns in 2002–03 was £252,000.

  (3) The Sustainable Development Fund which particularly targets the engagement of young people from rural and urban backgrounds on projects in the National Parks and the Broads which has £1 million for 2002–03 (increasing to £1.6 million for 2003–04).

  In addition, Table 1 gives details of the funding made available to voluntary organisation across Defra's areas of responsibility, comparing 2000–01 and 2002–02. The total figure was nearly £39 million in 2002–03 compared with £20 million in 2001–02.

  authorisation procedures, to provide financial support to Rolls-Royce for dual-use engine technology demonstration programmes associated with the A400M.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to her answer of 3 June,Official Report, column 319W, on the A400M, what the total eligible technology demonstration programme costs are; what estimate she has made of the size of the grant to be provided to Rolls-Royce; what authorisation is being sought; and when approval is expected. [118840]

  Jacqui Smith
  The eligible costs of the technology demonstration programme(s) and therefore the potential grant related to it are currently being assessed with Rolls-Royce. The support will be delivered under an existing recognised and authorised scheme. The timing of any grant approval is a matter between Rolls-Royce and this Department.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to her answer of 3 June,Official Report, column 317W, on the A400M, for whom the

  681W
  evaluation to which she referred was prepared; how much it cost to research and produce; and who paid these costs. [118841]

  Jacqui Smith
  DTI, as the issuing authority, will undertake the assessment, evaluation and authorisation of any grant in support of the engine technology demonstration programmes. The cost of the evaluation has not been quantified, but will be picked up within the departmental budget.

  Arms Exports
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry in what circumstances the end-use of UK arms exports would be unacceptable and result in the refusal of an export licence. [121141]

  Nigel Griffiths
  I refer my Friend to the reply from my right hon. Friend, the Member for Neath, the then Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, to my hon. Friend, the Member for Crawley (Laura Moffatt) on 26 October 2000,Official Report, columns 199–203W.

  British American Tobacco (Smuggling)
  David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether the departmental report into alleged involvement by British American Tobacco in smuggling has been completed; and when it will be published. [117588]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 9 June 2003]: Inquiries pursuant to s.447 Companies Act 1985 which were announced on 30 October 2000 are nearing completion. The results of such inquiries under the Companies Act 1985 are not published.

  Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation
  Huw Irranca-Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the work of the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation. [113539]

  Mr. Timms
  I recognise the positive work the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation does in coalfield areas. I intend to make an announcement on funding for the organisation shortly.

  (Percentage)

  Constituency

  COPD Claims Received

  COPD Interims Paid1

  COPD Claims Settled

  COPD Claims Not Settled2

  VWF Claims Received

  VWF Interim Paid1

  VWF Claims Settled

  VWF Claims Not Settled2

  Leigh

  2,124

  530

  28

  72

  707

  285

  46

  54

  Makerfield

  1,621

  398

  23

  77

  636

  326

  41

  59

  Wigan

  1,329

  339

  23

  77

  364

  162

  40

  60

  1 Figures are for total interims paid. Claimants can receive more than one interim payment.

  2 Some claimants will have received interim payments.

  Note:

  Constituency figures can be found on the Department's website: www.dti.gov.uk/coalhealth. The information is compiled in the middle of the month and shows the figures for the end of the previous month.

  Coal Miners (Compensation)
  David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of former coal miner claimants represented by each of the top 10 claims handlers have had their claims for(a) chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder and (b) vibration white finger denied. [119520]

  Mr. Timms
  The figures are:

  Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

  Top 10 Solicitors 1

  2Denials as a percentage of total offers

  Thompsons

  11.86

  Hugh James Ford Simey

  9.38

  UDM

  18.34

  Raleys

  6.16

  Mark Gilbert Morse

  8.87

  Beresfords

  25.28

  Browell Smith and Co.

  5.89

  Graysons

  16.45

  Watson Burton

  6.11

  Randall Lloyd Jenkins and Martin

  12.00

  1 Top 10 Solicitors are in descending order and based on total claims intimated.

  2Denials and total offers are based on the last assessment made as reported in the COPD Weekly Statistics (lines 5.12 and 5.13 respectively).

  VWF

  Top 10 Solicitors1

  2Denials as a percentage of total offers

  UDM

  30.92

  Thompsons

  27.39

  Browell Smith and Co.

  29.47

  Raleys

  19.51

  Hugh James Ford Simey

  23.95

  Graysons

  24.39

  Watson Burton

  24.74

  Towells

  20.62

  Beresfords

  44.72

  Kidd and Spoor Harper

  22.33

  1 Top 10 Solicitors are in descending order and based on total claims intimated.

  Includes Group 3 denials for which solicitors can contend the denials by providing evidence in accordance with the Occupational Group Procedure.

  Andy Burnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many claims to date have been received from the Leigh, Makerfield and Wigan constituencies under the coal health compensation scheme for(a) chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and (b) vibration white finger; and what percentage of those claims that have (i) received an interim payment, (ii) been fully settled and (iii) not been settled at all. [117936]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 17 June 2003]: The figures as of 31 May 2003 are as follows:

  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many times the ECGD has circulated details of a case through the Sensitive Case mechanism to the(a) Foreign and Commonwealth Office, (b) Ministry of Defence, (c) Department for International Development and (d) Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; and how many of these cases have progressed to approval. [120475]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Ministry of Defence, Department for International Development and Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs have each received details of the six cases that have so far been considered under the Sensitive Case mechanism. To date two of these cases have progressed to approval.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many applications deemed to have high potential impact the Export Credits Guarantee Department has not approved in the last 12 months; and what the project type was of each application. [120729]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  In the last 12 months no applications deemed to have high potential impacts have been refused cover by ECGD.

  Employment (Tees Valley)
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proportion of employment in the Tees Valley is dependant on manufacturing. [120735]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Vera Baird, dated 23 June 2003:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question on the proportion of employment in the Tees Valley area that is dependant on manufacturing. (120735)
  The Annual Business Inquiry (ABI) gives an estimate of the number of employee jobs in December of each year and the latest year for which figures are available is 2001.
  The ABI data for the requested area is shown in the following table:

  Employee jobs in Tees Valley in 2001

  Number

  Manufacturing

  39,345

  Total

  251,325

  percentage

  Manufacturing as a proportion of total

  15.7

  Post Office Card Accounts
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many Post Office card accounts have been opened in Cornwall; and whether her Department has a target for the number of Post Office card accounts to be opened in Cornwall by the end of 2003. [120091]

  Mr. Timms
  The information is not available in the format requested. National figures only are available.
  684W
  However, I understand from the Post Office Ltd. that as of 31 May 2003, 32,900 Post Office card accounts have been opened. This number should grow rapidly over the coming weeks and months as those people opting for a card account complete the application process. By the end of May some 330,000 people had said they want to open a Post Office card account.

  There are no targets for the number of people who can open a Post Office card account.

  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many Post Office card accounts have been opened in(a) England, (b) Suffolk, (c) Norfolk, (d) Cambridgeshire, (e) Essex and (f) the Bury St. Edmunds constituency. [120426]

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

  I understand from the Post Office Ltd. that as of 31 May 2003, 32,900 Post Office card accounts had been opened.

  This number should grow rapidly over the coming weeks and months as those people opting for a card account complete the application process. By the end of May some 330,000 people had said they want to open a Post Office card account.

  Postage Stamps (Discounted Sales)
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) how many postage stamps have been sold at a discounted price in the last 12 months; [118230]

  (2) whether rural post offices may sell postage stamps at a discounted price; [118231]

  (3) what assessment she has made of the competitive implications of selling of stamps at discounted prices. [118232]

  Mr. Timms
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 16 June 2003,Official Report, columns 49–50W.

  Renewable Energy Policy
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what comparative studies her Department has undertaken with other European countries which have introduced subsidies for wood-fired power stations; what impact such subsidies have been seen to have had on the availability of wood for other purposes; and if she will make a statement; [119178]

  (2) what assessment her Department has made of the impact of the Government's renewable energy policy on UK wood panel manufacturers; [119179]

  (3) what assessment her Department has made of the impact on the availability of wood suitable for products of subsidies paid to electricity suppliers in the form of renewable obligation certificates. [119180]

  Mr. Timms
  The Renewables Obligation is the main instrument put in place by Government to promote the development of renewable forms of energy in the UK. The obligation is intended to provide an impetus for new generating capacity that will be required to meet our
  685W
  current targets for renewable energy set in the Energy White Paper and as a basis for further reductions in carbon dioxide emissions under Kyoto.

  My officials are facilitating work between representatives of the UK wood industry and co-firing power stations to explore the opportunities offered by co-firing under the obligation for UK forestry, and, in particular, the potential for using byproducts from existing wood industries. It is hoped that this initiative, if successful, will have the dual benefit of reducing imports and making more biomass available for a larger market in the UK, thereby helping to stabilise prices. We understand from the forestry industry that it can meet demand from power generators from existing surplus forestry material. My officials are obtaining further information on the availability of forestry material used by power generators and wood panel manufacturers.

  In addition, we are currently reviewing the co-firing rules under the obligation with a view to encouraging stronger take-up of energy crops by farmers which should, in time, relieve any pressure on forestry material.

  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what subsidies are available to the energy industry for(a) the incineration of biomass renewable fuels and (b) capital equipment such as wood fired generators; and how much these subsidies are estimated to amount to in terms of £ per ton of wood incinerated in power stations. [119182]

  Mr. Timms
  Capital Grants have recently been awarded to projects throughout the UK to construct biomass-fuelled heat and power generation plant. The scheme, jointly run by DTI and the New Opportunities Fund, is worth £66 million and will support the capital costs of projects. These funds have been fully allocated. Projects funded under the scheme are expected to use appropriate biomass fuels such as short rotation coppice and forestry wood fuels as the majority fuel source.

  We do not collect information on the amount of subsidy in terms of tonnage of feedstock. Any estimates would be subject to a significant number of variables e.g. moisture, fuel source and efficiency.

  Sewel Motions
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list Sewel motions passed by the Scottish Parliament since May 1999 that apply to her Department's responsibilities and Government bills she has sponsored. [120699]

  Jacqui Smith
  Of the Bills sponsored by my Department, the following were the subject of Sewel motion in the Scottish Parliament on the date indicated:

  Electronic Communications 23 June 1999

  Financial Services and Markets 23 June 1999

  Limited Liability Partnerships 23 June 1999

  Insolvency 1 June 2000

  Enterprise 17 April 2002

  Telecommunication Masts
  Mr Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many telecommunications masts there are; and how many of these are shared between different operators. [119600]

  Mr. Timms
  The total number of telecommunications masts in the UK is not recorded nor is it possible to state how many are shared. Some are owned and operated by the communications operators themselves and others are leased from specialist companies. Operators are required always to consider the possibility of sharing mastsor other structures in order to minimise their number. Many structures such as power transmission pylons are shared with telecommunications equipment.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many new masts she estimates will be required to fulfil the telecommunications obligation under the 3G licences by 2007; and how many of them she estimates will be shared. [119602]

  Mr. Timms
  It is not possible to give a reliable estimate of the number of new masts that will be needed to fulfil the obligations of the 3G licensees, nor the number that will be shared. The total number of masts will be affected by the level of demand for 3G services, by commercial decisions related to the design of the networks and by the requirements of planning authorities. The four operators with existing GSM networks will also be able to reduce the number of sites required by co-locating the 3G and GSM antennae. Two of the operators, T-Mobile and MMO2 have entered into an agreement to share parts of their networks and this will significantly reduce the numbers of masts required. All operators are required to consider the sharing of masts and this has a significant effect in reducing the total number required.

  Broadband
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much money has been allocated towards the introduction of broadband in(a) Cleethorpes, (b) Great Grimsby, (c) Scunthorpe and (d) Brigg and Goole. [119441]

  Mr. Timms
  This information is not currently held centrally. Yorkshire Forward is committed to and very active in supporting pilot projects looking at broadband coverage across Yorkshire and Humberside and delivers a region-wide integrated strategy.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what proportion of income was spent on administration by the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts in the last financial year. [121337]

  Estelle Morris
  In the financial year 2001–02 (the last year for which audited data is available), NESTA spent £1.204 million out of total expenditure of £13.541 million (8.9 per cent.) on non-programme
  687W
  expenditure. Audited figures for the financial year 2002–03 will be available in the autumn, and a copy will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Olympic Games
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland concerning London's bid for the 2012 Olympic Games; and what measures she has taken to promote Northern Ireland as a host region for games events. [120888]

  Mr. Caborn
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has held no separate discussions with her right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland regarding London's bid to host the Olympic and Paralympic Games in 2012. The decision to bid for the Games and related matters was discussed by the Cabinet, of which the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is a member.

  A Bid Company for London 2012, established by the stakeholders, the Government, the Mayor of London and the BOA, will prepare the technical bid for the IOC. They will have the responsibility for identifying proposed venues for Games. Should London be selected as the host city for the 2012 Games there will be opportunities to spread the benefits around the UK, for example through providing training camps for teams from visiting nations, the cultural programme and staging the Olympic football competition.

  'Pride of Place' Publication
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many copies of 'Pride of Place' have been sold; and what(a) was spent on and (b) income was received from 'Pride of Place'. [121417]

  Estelle Morris
  According to Arts Council England's latest figures, 939 copies of this publication have been sold which means that they have received income of £11,268. As my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howell) previously stated to the hon. Member, publication cost was £78,000 for a print run of 7,500.

  Sport England
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what factors underlay the decision to remove projects from Sport England for 2003–04; and if she will make a statement. [121306]

  Mr. Caborn
  Sport England's review of its operations, business objectives and Lottery funded programmes is being carried out as part of its modernisation and restructuring programme that we have asked it to undertake. Sport England's Council is convinced that the review of Lottery projects is in the best long term interests of sport in this country. It will enable Sport England to assess future income against its commitments to existing and future programmes and consider how funding might be best used to meet its new business strategy and objectives.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Afganistan
  Mr. Roy
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development if he will make a statement on the efforts and contributions made by the Government in the reconstruction of Afghanistan. [121298]

  Hilary Benn
  At the Ministerial Conference in Tokyo (January 2002), DFID pledged £200 million over five years for development assistance in Afghanistan. In 2002–03, we provided £75 million including £12.7 million to help clear Afghanistan's arrears to the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank, unlocking highly concessional loans of approximately $500 million over the next two years. For this financial year, DFID is willing to increase our Tokyo commitment of £40 million per year to £50 million, linked to progress on civil service reform. The joint FCO-DFID-MOD Global Conflict Prevention Pool will provide a further £16.8 million this year. In addition, DFID will contribute an estimated £40 million through multilateral channels (EC, IDA) this year.

  Food Shortages (Africa)
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what targets the Department has for the implementation of early warning systems for food shortages in Africa; which targets have been met; and to which such systems the Department has contributed. [120489]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID's aim is to continue improving early warning systems rather than meeting specific targets. Internationally, DFID is providing support to the UN World Food Programme (WFP) to strengthen its capacity to identify and respond to emergencies, including enhancing monitoring systems and Vulnerability Assessment and Mapping (VAM) and the inter-agency Food Insecurity and Vulnerability Information and Mapping System (FIVIMS) initiative at the UN Food and Agriculture Organisation. In Ethiopia DFID is supporting the development of early warning systems in pastoralist areas with Save the Children UK and working with the UN Emergency Unit for Ethiopia (UN-EUE). In southern Africa DFID is active in regional donor co-ordination networks and is supporting the development of a regional strategy for food security.

  Iraq
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what percentage, and how much, of departmental controlled aid to Iraq has been(a) allocated and (b) spent on (i) humanitarian aid, (ii) reconstruction work, (iii) institution building, Government capacity and civil service reform, (iv) salaries, administration costs and overheads and(v) security; and if he will make a statement. [120487]

  Hilary Benn
  We do not categorise our assistance to Iraq in the above way. So far, almost all of our support has been made through international agencies to meet immediate humanitarian needs. To date, of the £115 million that has been committed towards such assistance in the current crisis, £13 million has been
  689W
  allocated to the United Nations for preparedness, £65 million to the United Nations Flash Appeal to UN agencies, £32 million to the International Red Cross and £5 million to NGOs. We have, so far, disbursed £84 million of this allocation. An additional £4 million has been approved to cover DFID's own emergency response to fund secondments to Baghdad and Basra to support the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) and the UN system. This brings the total DFID commitment in Iraq to date to £119 million.

  A further £95 million has been set aside by DFID to respond to further emerging humanitarian needs as they arise. HM Treasury has made another £60 million available for humanitarian assistance and reconstruction should it be required. Our approach to prospective UK funding to Iraq is set out in our Interim Iraq Humanitarian and Rehabilitation Strategy which can be found on the DFID website at www.dfid.gov.uk

  Mines
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development in which countries, and to what purposes, the UN's Mine Action Service are putting their most recent allocation of funds from the Department. [117188]

  Hilary Benn
  Pursuant to my written answer of 10 June 2003,Official Report, column 773W, I apologise for an error in the data given. The amount allocated to Mine Action in Sudan was £1,133,333 not £2,333,333 as originally stated. The following table gives the corrected figure.

  The United Nations Mine Action Service (UNMAS) has allocated funds provided by DFID during the past and current financial year to country programmes, as follows:

  Country

  Amount (£)

  Purpose

  Sudan

  161,573

  Demining Nuba mountains

  Sudan

  65,333

  Mine action co-ordination

  Sudan

  1,133,333

  Mine action centres

  Kosovo

  171,760

  Demining teams

  Eritrea

  45,000

  Mine survey

  Afghanistan

  4,800,000

  Demining

  Iraq

  4,000,000

  Demining

  Eritrea/Ethiopia

  35,000

  Mine action co-ordination

  DR Congo

  65,333

  Mine action co-ordination

  S. Lebanon

  133,333

  Mine action centre

  Pakistan
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what progress has been made with the Department's support for tuberculosis(a) vaccination and (b) treatment in Pakistan. [121302]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID has just agreed a new 4-year DFID initiative to improve the health of poor people in Pakistan. The national health and population welfare facility (NHF) will support the Government of Pakistan's efforts to achieve the ambitious targets set-out in the national health and population policies and in the interim-poverty reduction strategy paper. The achievement of these targets includes the strengthening of the directly observed treatment schedule (DOTS) for 690W
  treatment of tuberculosis through the national tuberculosis programme. The NHF will provide (a) £60 million budget support to national health and population programmes, one of which is the national tuberculosis programme and (b) provide technical assistance to improve policy making and programme management.

  The NHF will commence in March 2003, with the first disbursement of financial aid planned for August 2003.

  Departmental Research Budget
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what percentage of the research budget was spent on evaluation in(a) 2001 and
  (b) 2002; and what percentage is planned to be spent in 2003. [120492]

  Hilary Benn
  The programme of evaluations commissioned by DFID's Evaluation Department is independent of DFID's other programme activities and is funded from a separate budget line. The following figures relate only to evaluation activities managed by Evaluation Department. However, other evaluation activities are undertaken within DFID, including those within bilateral and multilateral programmes and within policy and research programmes. Since spending on these decentralised evaluation activities is charged in each case against the budget for the relevant programme, expenditure is spread across DFID's overall budget. Consequently, expenditure figures for these activities are not readily available and could not be accurately identified without disproportionate cost. Similarly, expenditure on research has been spread across a range of programmes and annual totals are difficult to estimate. It is therefore difficult to compare expenditure on research and on evaluation respectively, and the cost of doing so would be disproportionate.

  Evaluation Department's actual expenditure (including administration costs) in the calendar years 2001 and 2002, and its estimate for expenditure in 2003 (including administration costs), is as follows:

  Evaluation expenditure

  Amount (£ million)

  2001

  0.913

  2002

  1.877

  2003

  2.402

  The actual and anticipated expenditure, including administration costs, expressed in financial years is:

  Actual and anticipated expenditure

  Financial year

  Amount (£ million)

  2001–02

  1.413

  2002–03

  1.838

  2003–04

  (estimated) 2.440

  Sudan
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development pursuant to his answer of 11 June 2003,Official Report, column 773W, on UN Mine Action Service, if he will

  691W
  provide a breakdown of (a) objectives, (b) locations and (c) costs of mine action centres in Sudan funded by the Department; if he will list organisations which are receiving resources from the Department to carry out humanitarian demining in Sudan; if he will list the Department's humanitarian priorities for mine action in Sudan; and if he will make a statement. [121506]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID has provided £1.4 million for mine action in Sudan since April 2002. To date this support has been channelled through the UN Mine Action Service (UNMAS), as the UN agency responsible for the co-ordination of mine action in Sudan. UNMAS' current objectives are to support the establishment of a working and appropriate national mine action management structure, as well as to support the systematic reduction of the threat of landmines and unexploded ordinance by a process of identification, isolation and clearance. Specific UNMAS activities, including those supported by DFID, have consisted of mine clearance of major roads in the Nuba Mountains region; cross-line training and capacity building for Sudanese de-miners; technical survey work; support for co-ordination activities; and planning for future mine action activities in the event of peace. Mine action throughout Sudan, particularly southern Sudan, will be a priority following a peace agreement to enable both increased access for humanitarian aid organisations and increased delivery of humanitarian assistance, as well as to allow displaced populations to return.

  Support Recipients
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development to which countries the Department has supplied budget support; how much each country has received; and what percentage of the total received by these countries from the Department took the form of budget support in each year since 2000. [120494]

  Hilary Benn
  Expenditure on budget support was not collected separately in our central systems until fairly recently. However a special exercise was conducted earlier this year to identify such expenditure and the results are given in the following table. These should be treated as estimates as coverage may be incomplete.

  Estimated expenditure on budget support (£ million) and as percentage of total support

  £ million

  Percentage of total

  Country

  2000–01

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2002–03

  Afghanistan

  —

  —

  —

  —

  12.7

  17

  Bolivia

  —

  —

  5.6

  44

  1.3

  14

  East Timor

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  61

  Ghana

  47.6

  65

  32.2

  59

  11.5

  20

  Guyana

  0.2

  1

  0.3

  2

  0.3

  2

  India

  —

  —

  65

  35

  —

  —

  Kenya

  15

  29

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Macedonia

  —

  —

  3

  37

  —

  —

  Malawi

  30

  53

  17.5

  38

  —

  —

  Montserrat

  5.7

  28

  5.1

  21

  7.5

  32

  Mozambique

  10

  24

  10.6

  26

  10.4

  27

  Pakistan

  —

  —

  20

  46

  11

  29

  Rwanda

  25.4

  77

  18.6

  68

  22

  68

  Serbia

  3.4

  22

  7

  60

  —

  —

  Sierra Leone

  16.5

  47

  19.6

  53

  10

  30

  St. Helena

  6

  60

  5.9

  60

  5.9

  63

  Tanzania

  40.6

  59

  35.7

  55

  45.1

  47

  Uganda

  60

  69

  37

  54

  23.5

  43

  692W

  Estimated expenditure on budget support (£ million) and as percentage of total support

  £ million

  Percentage of total

  Country

  2000–01

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2002–03

  Vietnam

  —

  —

  7

  43

  7

  40

  Zambia

  15

  27

  —

  —

  7.6

  19

  275.4

  38

  290.1

  39

  179.9

  22

  Sustainable Development
  Mr. Roger Williams
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what remit relating to sustainable development is required by the Department's(a) executive agencies, (b) advisory non-departmental bodies, (c) executive non-departmental bodies, (d) tribunals, (e) public corporations and (f) other bodies. [116677]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID is not responsible for any Executive Agencies, advisory or executive non-departmental bodies or tribunals. It is however responsible for CDC Group plc, a self-financing public corporation which it wholly owns.

  In 1999, DFID established an Investment Policy to which CDC Group plc must work. This involves using its capital so as to maximize the creation and long-term growth of viable businesses in poorer developing countries through responsible investment and by mobilising private finance.

  It requires the company to seek best practice in the areas of personal and corporate integrity, social issues (including the prohibition of child or forced labour and of discriminatory practices), environmental standards, Health and Safety, transparency and compliance with laws and fiscal requirements. It also forbids any investment in businesses dealing with military and nuclear products, illegal drugs, gambling, pornography or tobacco.

  Voluntary Organisations
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what funding programmes are operated by the Department to support voluntary organisations working with young people; and what the level of support has been in each of the last three years. [120529]

  Hilary Benn
  There is no DFID funding solely targeted at voluntary organisations working with young people. However, we do provide substantial funding to a wide variety of voluntary organisations; in 2001–02 (the latest year for which figures are available) DFID provided £190.5 million in support of development programmes managed by 125 different such organisations. Many of the activities supported do directly benefit young people.

  World Food Programme
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what the main aims are of the Department's representative on the World Food Programme Executive Board; and if he will make a statement. [120488]
  693W
  Hilary Benn
  The main aims of the United Kingdom's Representative on the Executive Board of the World Food Programme (WFP) are to promote(a) the effective and appropriate delivery of food aid to developing countries, particularly in emergency situations; (b) the effective accountability and governance of WFP; and (c) a coordinated and complementary role for WFP within the international humanitarian and development assistance systems.

  The United Kingdom Representative to WFP, Mr. Anthony Beattie, is the President of the WFP Executive Board in 2003.

  Zimbabwe
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development (1) if he will list the dates of the suspension of long-term development aid projects the Department supported in Zimbabwe; [120507]

  (2) what financial resources the Department has allocated to Zimbabwe Police Organisational Development since 1997; how they were spent; and if he will make a statement; [120508]

  (3) what the sterling value was of Land Rover Defenders was exported to the Zimbabwe Republic Police by the Department; and if he will make a statement; [120509]

  (4) how many Land Rover Defenders were exported for use by the Zimbabwe Republic Police as part of a development project supported by the Department between 1997 and 2002; [120510]

  (5) what assurances the Government received from the Government of Zimbabwe about the use of the Land Rover Defenders exported for use by the Zimbabwe Republic Police; and if he will make a statement. [120511]

  Hilary Benn
  Two DFID projects, both in support the Republic of Zimbabwe Police, were suspended in April 2000 given concern about political activities and lack of respect for the law by the police. Both projects have since been closed.

  The £6.438 million Zimbabwe Police Organisational Development project was agreed in 1996, but only £1.817 million was spent by its closure. The Police Land Rovers project was approved in 1997, and was one of the last commitments under the old Aid and Trade Provision, which has also since been wound up. The commitment to purchase 1,500 Land Rovers involved a DFID grant of £8.4 million. 1,030 land rovers were provided, and £6 million spent.

  The Zimbabwe Government made a commitment in the grant agreement to uphold their service charter—in particular with due respect for human rights and the minimum use of force—and not to use the vehicles for the control of demonstrations and riots. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Birmingham, Ladywood (Clare Short), as Secretary of State for International Development, made the decision in April 2000 to suspend the project given concern, expressed to the Zimbabwean Commissioner of Police and the Home Minister, at the use of the vehicles in heavy-handed police response to civil demonstrations and failure of the police to uphold the law in relation to farm occupations from 2000. We remain deeply concerned at the partisan
  694W
  action by the police force, selective application of the law, and lack of respect for civil and human rights in Zimbabwe.

DEFENCE

  Atomic Weapons Establishment
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the recruitment of scientists at the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston. [120066]

  Mr. Caplin
  As with every organisation, there is an ongoing need at the Atomic Weapons Establishment to maintain and improve the expertise of its workforce. The recruitment of graduate scientists is vital to the Company if it is to sustain its high technical expertise in the nuclear technology field. The Government attach great importance to ensuring the safety and serviceability of the UK's nuclear weapons. The Strategic Defence Review of 1998 confirmed the need for a robust capability to underwrite the safety and reliability of Trident, in the absence of nuclear testing and to maintain a minimum capability to design and produce a successor to Trident should this prove necessary. To achieve this assurance with great confidence and to meet the SDR remit, AWE must continue to recruit new staff to maintain a viable capability.

  Armed Forces
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, pursuant to his answer of 16 June,Official Report, column 52W, on armed forces funding, whether it is his policy that allocated funding should be retained by the armed forces if there is a shortfall in numbers of servicemen. [120814]

  Mr. Ingram
  Ministry of Defence top level budget holders are allowed to reallocate resources within their annual budgetary allocations to best meet agreed outputs, subject to some restrictions on, for example, movements between Capital and Resource Expenditure. Budgetary allocations are revisited on an annual basis to ensure plans match available resources and any surplus funding on personnel costs that might exist would be reallocated to better achieve overall defence objectives.

  Foreign Forces Training
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many British Army training teams are employed abroad training the foreign military forces; where they are located; and how many personnel are employed for this purpose; [121091]

  (2) how many foreign military forces have been trained by British Army training teams; if he will make a statement on the training teams' effectiveness; and if he plans to increase the numbers of teams. [121092]

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

  Infantry Deployment
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the(a) strength and (b) establishment is of each infantry regiment.[120877]

  Mr. Ingram
  The overall infantry strength and establishment are 25,460 and 26,200 respectively. Army personnel statistics relating to individual regiments are being updated and a statistical analysis of each infantry regiment is not readily available. Officials are compiling these statistics and a copy of the report will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Maintenance Costs
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many contracts the Ministry of Defence and its agencies have with outside contractors for the maintenance of Ministry of Defence equipment; [121252]

  (2) how many contracts the Ministry of Defence and its agencies have with outside contractors for the maintenance of Ministry of Defence (a) IT equipment and (b) establishments. [121253]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence places on average around 40,000 contracts per year. The information requested is not held centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Iraq
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many short or medium range ballistic missiles capable of being fired at ranges(a) no greater than 150km and (b) greater than 150km have been identified as having been launched by Iraqi forces during the recent conflict. [114925]

  Mr. Ingram
  We currently assess that 20 ballistic missiles were launched by Iraqi forces during the recent conflict. Of these, we assess that three were capable of being fired at ranges no greater that 150km and 13 were capable of being fired at ranges greater than 150km. No firm assessments have yet been made in respect of the potential ranges of four of the ballistic missiles.

  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many persons(a) with knowledge of the Iraqi short or medium range missile programmes, (b) who have been involved with such programmes and (c) who were in command positions with units possessing such missiles during the recent conflict have been (i) detained for questioning and (ii) held as prisoners of war by (A) the United Kingdom and (B) other Coalition forces. [114934]

  Mr. Ingram
  Coalition forces are currently investigating Iraq's programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction, including ballistic missiles with proscribed ranges. These investigations will include debriefing of Iraqi prisoners of war, interviews with senior regime figures and information from other Iraqi military and civilian sources. The breadth of such contacts means that it is not possible to quantify the numbers of interviews on this subject to date. At the appropriate time, we will make the evidence public.
  696W
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when British WMD inspectors visited the Rashad chemical and biological research facility in Iraq; and what they found.[117625]

  Mr. Hoon
  British inspectors have not visited the Rashad chemical and biological research facility in Iraq. We assess that this facility was demolished by the Iraqi authorities in the early 1980s when they relocated their research to purpose built facilities.

  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the risk that biological weapons formerly possessed by the government of Saddam Hussein may have(a) left Iraq or (b) come into the possession of terrorist groups.[113014]

  Mr. Hoon
  The potential proliferation of materials and technology related to Iraqi programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction, including biological weapons, remains a matter of concern. Coalition forces continue to take action to secure sites, equipment, and material which may relate to WMD programmes, or which may otherwise contain hazardous substances, within the overall aim of restoring security and stability to Iraq. Our long term aim will be to account for, and eliminate, any WMD capability, including any biological weapons. We are confident that further evidence of Iraq's WMD programmes will be uncovered. At the appropriate time, we will make the evidence public.

  Desert Equipment
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what evaluation his Department has made of the quality of the desert boots and uniforms supplied for the war in Iraq; what representations he has received about the quality of desert boots and uniforms; and if he will make a statement.[120866]

  Mr. Ingram
  The desert boots and uniforms procured under Urgent Operational Requirement procedures for the war in Iraq had been tested, subjected to 'consumer' trials, and procured to a high quality and reliability standard.

  I am aware that there have been numerous unofficial and, as yet, unsubstantiated comments about the robustness of desert combat clothing issued to the United Kingdom armed forces serving on operations in Iraq. To date, we have had no reports through the official defect reporting system of any sub-standard items.

  RAF Manoeuvres
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 13 June 2003,Official Report, column 114W, on RAF manoeuvres, whether it is his policy to allow RAF aircraft to fly low over South East Essex on a regular basis.[121053]

  Mr. Caplin
  It is Ministry of Defence policy that, in principle, the whole of the United Kingdom is open to essential military low flying training in order to spread the disturbance it can cause as thinly as possible. South East Essex, however, largely falls within an area known as the Thames Valley Avoidance Area (TVAA). The TVAA is excluded from routine military low flying
  697W
  because of the amount of controlled airspace associated with the London Airports, and the proximity of major built-up areas.

  Military low flying aircraft may still enter the TVAA on occasion, but these events will usually be limited to: helicopters conducting transit flights, helicopters conducting search and rescue training over water in the area of the Thames Estuary, or flights individually
  698W
  cleared by MOD Head Office. A small number of such clearances are granted each year, usually for flypasts in support of major state or ceremonial events.

  General information on military low flying is available to the public on the website www.mod.uk/issues/lowflying and in a leaflet entitled "Military Low Flying—An Essential Skill", that may be obtained by telephoning 020 7218 6020.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Appointments
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the people appointed to ad hoc posts within his Department bearing the titles of advocate, tsar, adviser, champion and comparable titles since May 1997; what their job title is or was; what their role is or was; whether they were or are being paid; what the total cost of each such person was in each financial year, including expenses and benefits; what the expected cost of each such person is in 2003–04; to whom they are accountable; and if he will make a statement. [112463]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Since 1997, my Department has employed Special Advisers or Unpaid Advisers, as defined in paragraphs 50 and 51 of the Ministerial Special Code. The names are listed below:

  David Blunkett

  Conor Ryan

  Sophie Linden

  Lisa Barclay

  Hilary Benn

  Tom Bentley

  Leala Padmanabhan

  Tom Engel

  Nick Pearce

  Estelle Morris

  Will Cavendish

  Chris Boffey

  Charles Clarke

  Lisa Tremble

  Robert Hill

  The Special Adviser role within the Department was/is to advise the Secretary of State. Remuneration are not disclosed in order to protect the privacy of the individual concerned, and exemption 12 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information applies. The unpaid adviser from the above list was Leala Padmanabhan.

  Child Care
  Mr. Lepper
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many child care places were available in Brighton and Hove in each year since 1996–97. [114691]

  Margaret Hodge
  The available information for Brighton and Hove local authority is shown in the table.

  Figures for 2001 and earlier years for England and Government Office regions were published in DfES Statistical Bulletin 08/01, "Children's Day Care Facilities at 31 March 2001", which is available in the Library and on the DfES website: www.dfes.gov.uk/ statistics.

  Numbers of day care places1 by type of provider Brighton and Hove local authority area 1998–2001

  Position at 31 March each year

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Day nurseries

  2—

  1,900

  1,800

  2,100

  Playgroups and pre-schools

  1,100

  1,100

  1,000

  1,000

  Childminders

  1,000

  1,000

  920

  880

  700W

  Numbers of day care places1 by type of provider Brighton and Hove local authority area 1998–2001

  Position at 31 March each year

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Out of school clubs

  240

  320

  360

  480

  Holiday schemes3

  1,500

  1,800

  4,100

  7,400

  1 Figures have been rounded

  2 Day nursery figures for 1998 are not available

  3Some of the difference between 1998 and 1999 may be due to additional guidance given to data providers in 1999

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many children were in classes of 31 or more in(a) infant and (b) primary schools in Stoke-on-Trent in each year since 1996–97. [119156]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Maintained primary schools: Stoke-on-Trent local education authority

  Number of pupils in classes of 31 or more taught by one teacher

  January

  Key stage 1

  Total primary

  19971

  11,254

  31,492

  19982

  2,525

  7,465

  19992

  2,224

  6,689

  20002

  750

  4,909

  20012

  162

  4,037

  20022

  62

  2,648

  20032,3,4

  282

  2,284

  1 Before local government reorganisation. Prior to 1998 Stoke-on-Trent was included with Staffordshire.

  2 After local government reorganisation. Figures from 1998 onwards are not directly comparable to those for 1997.

  3 The Key stage 1 total relates to 9 classes and each of these classes contained children who were exceptions permitted by legislation. These permitted exceptions resulted in a class of more than 30.

  4 Provisional. Final figures will be published in September 2003.

  Source:

  Annual Schools' Census

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what recent representations he has received regarding school class sizes.[120775]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  There have been no recent substantial representations made to this Department regarding school class sizes, although during the last quarter, we received 18 letters, mainly from parents, relating to various class size issues.

  Departmental Accountants
  Mr. Banks
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many qualified accountants are employed in(a) the School and LEA Funding Division of his Department and (b) his Department in total.[119498]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  My Department employs 33 qualified accountants, of whom one is currently employed within School and LEA Funding Division.
  701W
  Some of the remainder are employed in a central accountancy team whose expertise can be drawn on as needed by Divisions across the Department.

  Excluded Pupils
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will place in the Library the results of the survey his Department conducted in 2002 into the arrangements each local education authority has in place to provide full-time education to excluded pupils. [119686]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The information received from LEAs about the education of permanently excluded pupils in response to a survey in spring 2002 was not sufficiently robust to provide a reliable picture of the type of education provision they received. Eight LEAs did not reply, and those who did used different methodologies to calculate their figures, some of which were incomplete. Some also expressed concern about the reliability of their own returns. For this reason I do not intend to place the results of this survey in the House of Commons Library.

  However, all local education authorities confirmed that they were able to achieve the target of providing full-time education for all permanently excluded pupils by September 2002 and all but two currently report that they are sustaining such provision.

  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of children excluded from school are receiving their statutory entitlement to education following exclusion. [119424]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  There is no specific statutory entitlement to education following exclusion. However, the Government made a commitment to secure full-time education for all permanently excluded pupils by September 2002. All local education authorities confirmed that they were able to achieve that target and all but two currently report that they are sustaining such provision. In addition, Behaviour Improvement Programme LEAs are committed to providing full-time education for pupils temporarily excluded from target schools.

  Individual Learning Accounts
  Mr. Boris Johnson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many learning providers have been paid compensation following the Ombudsman's report into the closure of the ILA scheme; what the timetable is for payment; and if he will make a statement.[120728]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  As a result of the Ombudsman's report in response to a complaint by a learning provider, the Department has fully reimbursed that provider in respect of loss of income caused as a result of difficulties in booking learners onto the Individual Learning Account system.

  The Department is in the process of contacting other learning providers who may have been similarly disadvantaged. This process will have been completed by early July.
  702W
  The timetable for completing the whole exercise depends on the volume and complexity of the claims received and the issues they raise and all claims will be subject to validation checks. It is important that Government Accounting requirements are met.

  Mental Health
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what discussions he has had with the Department for Work and Pensions on help for people suffering from mental health problems at the interface between education and work.[119932]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  No specific discussions have been held on this issue between Ministers of the two Departments. However, both Departments are involved with the Mental Health and Social Exclusion project being led by the Government's Social Exclusion Unit. The project is looking at how to improve rates of employment for those aged 16–65 with mental health problems, through support in taking up and retaining work. It is also looking at how to promote greater social participation and better access to services for this group.

  The issue is also considered when taking forward other relevant policies. For instance we have developed the Connexions Service in partnership with a range of other Departments including the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department of Health, which of course leads on mental health policy. The Connexions Service plays an important role in ensuring all 13–19 year olds, including those with mental health issues, get the support they need to overcome barriers to participation in learning and employment. We have recently published an 'emerging practice' guide for Connexions Partnerships setting out learning from a pilot project on providing support to young people with mental health problems.

  The Learning and Skills Council, which has responsibility for planning and funding of post-16 education and training, including work-based training, also works in partnership with colleagues in the DWP. It is undertaking a programme of action research projects and development work that includes work on promoting access to employment for people with learning difficulties and/or disabilities and also on the development of inclusive provision for learners with mental health problems. They have also published a National Institute of Adult Continuing Education briefing sheet for their staff, "Learning and Skills for People Experiencing Mental Health Difficulties". This sets out considerations for local LSCs to take into account in ensuring there is suitable provision for those with mental health difficulties.

  Pupil Attainment
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will assess the effectiveness of Express Groups on pupil attainment in schools in former coalfields areas.[120125]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  This Department published a report on "Raising Attainment in the Former Coalfield Areas"
  703W
  on 29 May 2003. The report highlighted the positive effect of 'Express Groups' on pupil attainment in these areas, alongside a number of other strategies.

  This Department is now considering how best to convey these findings to other schools in the former coalfield areas.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Afghanistan
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received of fraud or financial irregularities in the use of UK funds to combat the opium trade in Afghanistan. [118705]

  Mr. Rammell
  We receive reports on all aspects of efforts to combat the opium trade in Afghanistan and are aware of suggestions that UK funds for counter drugs work in Afghanistan may have been misused. The Government take all reasonable measures to guard against fraud and financial irregularity in the use of public funds. All public expenditure, including that in respect of counter drugs work in Afghanistan, is subject to the established scrutiny procedures of parliamentary committees and the National Audit Office.

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many times the UK has exercised its veto in the EU Council of Ministers in each year since 1997. [121102]

  Mr. MacShane
  Neither the EU's Council Secretariat nor Her Majesty's Government keeps records of legislative proposals which are blocked by member states under unanimity. Our policy is to shape the EU's agenda and legislation in line with UK interests from the outset, rather than to block it at a later stage.

  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many decisions in the EU Council of Ministers have been taken by qualified majority voting in the past two years; and in how many cases the UK was in a minority.[121161]

  Mr. MacShane
  Voting information from May 2003 onward has not yet been published. From May 2001 to April 2003, the Council took 265 decisions by qualified majority voting. The UK was in a minority on three of these and abstained on eight. This information is displayed on the Council Secretariat website at http:// register.consilium.eu.int/iso- register/frames/introacfsEN.htm

  Diplomatic Posts (UK Products)
  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many UK overseas embassies and consulates are using pottery products manufactured in the UK.[121096]
  704W
  Mr. Rammell
  This information could be provided only at disproportionate cost. We do not maintain central records on the use of pottery products.

  European Convention
  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the European Convention(a) concluded its deliberations and (b) delivered its report on the proposed European Constitution; and to whom. [121103]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Convention concluded its deliberations on Parts I, II and IV of the draft Constitutional Treaty on 13 June 2003. That text was presented to the European Council at Thessaloniki, on 20 June 2003, by the Convention's President, Valery Giscard d'Estaing.

  As the European Council conclusions note:
  "the European Council considers that the presentation of the Draft Constitutional Treaty, as it has received it, marks the completion of the Convention's tasks as set out at Laeken and, accordingly, the end of its work. However, some purely technical work on drafting Part III is still required, this work needing to be finished by 15 July at the latest.".

  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what legal authority the Convention relied for the preparation of the proposed European Constitution.[121104]

  Mr. MacShane
  The European Council at Laeken in December 2001 noted the need for the Union to undergo renewal and reform to face the challenges of the future. It established the Convention:"to consider the key issues arising for the Union's future development and try to identify the various possible responses".

  In its mandate, the European Council noted the need to simplify the treaties and asked the Convention to consider whether:
  "this simplification and reorganisation might not lead … to the adoption of a constitutional text in the Union".

  The Convention's consideration of this and other key issues identified at Laeken led to the drawing up of the draft Constitution, which will provide a good basis for starting discussions in the Intergovernmental Conference.

  Mr. Cash
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the Convention has(a) voted for and (b) formally agreed to a final text in the proposed European Constitution; and if he will make a statement.[121105]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Convention concluded its deliberations on Part I, II and IV of the draft Constitutional Treaty on the basis of consensus, rather than voting. The final text was presented to the European Council by the Convention President, Valery Giscard d'Estaing. Leaders agreed that the text:"is a good basis for starting in the Intergovernmental Conference".

  There was also agreement that:
  "some purely technical work on drafting Part III is still required, this work needing to be finished by 15 July at the latest".

  G8 Declaration (Nuclear Non-proliferation)
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what additional resources he intends to commit to provide support and advance the International Atomic Energy Agency to improve the security of radioactive sources, as set out in paragraph 6 of the Evian G8 Declaration on Non-proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction: Securing Radioactive Sources, of 3 June 2003.[120798]

  Mr. MacShane
  The UK is a strong supporter of the International Atomic Energy Agency and its work, including on the safety and security of nuclear and radioactive materials. In March 2002, the UK announced a voluntary contribution of £250,000 towards the IAEA's Nuclear Security Fund (NSF) for work in Russia and the Former Soviet Union. We have since announced an additional £250,000 per year for the next two years, bringing our total additional voluntary contribution to £750,000. We are also supporting the IAEA's programmes in other ways, including active participation in the revision of the IAEA Code Of Conduct On The Safety And Security Of Radioactive Sources and the provision of UK expertise where appropriate.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on developments in the Russian plutonium disposition programme being funded under the G8 Global Partnership against the spread of weapons and materials of mass destruction; how much of the United Kingdom pledge of $750 million has been spent; and for what projects it is earmarked in future.[120800]

  Mr. MacShane
  The United Kingdom supports the Plutonium Disposition Programme and has committed £70 million over 10 years to its completion. We are participating fully in the negotiations on how best to implement this US/Russia-led project.

  In 2002–03, we spent approximately £15 million as part of our G8 Global Partnership commitment, and in 2003–04, we anticipate spending some £33 million. Our current project plans include the dismantling of nuclear submarines, making safe spent nuclear fuel, finding sustainable employment for former weapons scientists, improving nuclear safety and security of nuclear materials, decommissioning a reactor in Kazakhstan, contributing to a shelter at Chernobyl, and chemical weapons destruction. We will negotiate further projects with Russia in due course, as part of this 10-year programme.

  Gulf Co-operation Council
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to encourage co-operation between Gulf Co-operation Council countries and(a) the UK and (b) the EU.[120503]

  Mr. Rammell
  [holding answer 20 June 2003]: The UK has strong bilateral relations with the six countries of the Gulf Co-operation Council (GCC). In 2003 alone my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has had meetings with Prince Saud of Saudi Arabia, the Emirs of Kuwait and Qatar, and the Crown Princes of Bahrain and Abu Dhabi. He will see the Sultan of Oman in July. Our
  706W
  Embassy in Riyadh has regular contact with the GCC Secretariat on a wide range of issues and the Secretary-General of the GCC visited the UK in July 2002. The EU and GCC meet annually at ministerial level to discuss a range of issues. These include trade, investment and implementation of the EU-GCC Co-operation Agreement. We are discussing the establishment of a Commission Delegation in Riyadh and hope to conclude negotiations on a free trade area with the GCC. At the last Ministerial in March 2003 the EU and the GCC resolved to develop a political dialogue.

  Iran
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations with Iran.[120498]

  Mr. Rammell
  We pursue a twin-track approach of constructive but conditional engagement with Iran. We support reform while continuing a robust dialogue on matters of concern such as human rights and weapons of mass destruction. We support the conclusion of the 16 June 2003 EU General Affairs Council that:"progress in these matters [of concern] and strengthened dialogue and cooperation are interdependent, essential and mutually reinforcing elements of EU-Iran relations".

  Iraq
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what instructions were given by the Coalition to British troops in Iraq regarding the need to secure those sites identified by the Coalition as key in the search for weapons of mass destruction.[115514]

  Mr. Hoon
  I have been asked to reply.

  United Kingdom Commanders in Iraq were instructed to provide support, as appropriate, to efforts to investigate sites which may be related to programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction. UK Commanders have further been instructed to secure possible chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear hazards, with the aim of making their areas of operations safe for military forces and civilians.

  Phil Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to ensure the implementation of the UN General Assembly resolution 57/232 to deploy human rights monitors in Iraq.[119714]

  Mr. Rammell
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) on 20 June 2003,Official Report, column 471W.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to ensure the implementation of UN General Assembly Resolution 57/232 to deploy human rights monitors in Iraq.[120143]

  Mr. Rammell
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mrs. Curtis-Thomas) on 20 June 2003,Official Report, column 471W.
  707W
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs for what reason Mr. John Sawers has been withdrawn from Iraq; and if he will make a statement on the role to be played by Sir Jeremy Greenstock in Iraq.[120783]

  Mr. Rammell
  John Sawers is shortly leaving Iraq to take up a new appointment as Political Director in the FCO.

  Sir Jeremy Greenstock will take up his appointment in September 2003 following the completion of his Diplomatic Service posting as Ambassador at the United Nations.

  The appointment of such a senior and experienced diplomat shows the strength of our continuing commitment to Iraq.

  Sir Jeremy will report to my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary and other Ministers as necessary. His main role will be to contribute to and support the political process leading to the establishment of a representative Iraqi Government under the terms of SCR 1483. He will work closely with leading Iraqi representatives, the Coalition Provisional Authority, the UN and other representatives of the international community.

  France
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many UK citizens employed as lorry drivers were arrested and detained in France and then subsequently released in each year since 1997.[121362]

  Mr. Mullin
  We keep no such statistics. To provide the information requested would incur disproportionate costs.

  Palestine
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Palestinian Authority over the indoctrination of Palestinian children into suicide bombing, through television and music broadcasts, school books, and speeches by Palestinian Authority leaders; and if he will make a statement.[119999]

  Mr. Rammell
  We have made clear to the Palestinian Authority the importance of preventing incitement to violence in all areas of Palestinian society, and we welcome Palestinian Prime Minister Abbas' undertaking at Aqaba to act against incitement. The NGO Israel/Palestine Centre for Research and Information has recently completed an evaluation of new Palestinian educational textbooks introduced in recent years. It concludes that there have been improvements in content, and that the new textbooks do not incite against Israel or against peace. We continue to encourage such developments, and to support both the Palestinian Authority and Israel as they implement the roadmap, which includes clear obligations on both parties to end incitement against the other. We call on leaders and opinion-formers on both sides to set the standard and exercise judgment in their public statements.

  Muslim Association of Britain
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received about leading members of the Muslim Association of Britain having links with Hamas.[121239]

  Mr. MacShane
  [holding answer 23 June 2003]: We are not aware of any links between the Muslim Association of Britain and Hamas, although we keep the activities of Hamas under constant review.

  Performance Targets
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the performance targets that(a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) non-departmental public bodies are required to meet; and if he will specify for each target (i) who sets it and (ii) who monitors achievements against it.[120808]

  Mr. Rammell
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office's key performance targets are contained in its Public Service Agreements (PSA) for SR2000 (2001–04) and SR2002 (2003–06). The text of these agreements are contained in "Spending Review 2000: Public Service Agreements 2001–2004" (Cm 4808, July 2000) and "Spending Review 2002: Public Service Agreement targets 2003–2006" (Cm5571, July 2002).

  Progress against the FCO's PSA targets is monitored by the FCO, using a combination of internally-generated management information, and through a series of scorecard measures agreed with HM Treasury. Annual performance is reported in the FCO's Departmental Report.

  The following public bodies sponsored by the FCO have performance targets:

  BBC World Service (including BBC Monitoring) (public corporation)

  Targets for the BBC World Service are included in the FCO's PSAs, scorecards to the FCO's PSAs, and in the BBC World Service's annual report on output and performance measures. Targets are set by the FCO in consultation with the World Service. Progress is monitored by the FCO.

  Targets for BBC Monitoring are set out in scorecards to the FCO's SDA. Additional key performance indicators/targets are set out in BBC Monitoring's corporate plan. These key performance indicators and targets are set by the FCO and other stakeholders in BBC Monitoring (Ministry of Defence, Cabinet Office and BBC World Service) in consultation with BBC Monitoring, and achievement is monitored by the stakeholders.

  British Association for Central and Eastern Europe (executive non-departmental public body)

  Performance targets for the British Association for Central and Eastern Europe are set out in its Corporate Plan. The Corporate Plan, proposed by the association, is agreed and monitored by its Governing Body.
  709W
  British Council (executive non-departmental public body)

  The British Council's annual corporate plan summarises the British Council's key operational and financial targets for the year. Progress against its targets is monitored by the British Council and the FCO.

  The Great Britain-China Centre (executive non-departmental public body)

  The Great Britain-China Centre has annual objectives which are included in its corporate plan. These objectives are set and progress against them monitored by the Great Britain-China Centre board in conjunction with the FCO.

  Marshall Aid Commemoration Commission (advisory non-departmental public body)

  The Marshall Aid Commemoration Commission's corporate plan contains annual performance targets. The plan is approved, and progress against its targets monitored, by the FCO.

  Westminster Foundation for Democracy (executive non-departmental public body)

  The Westminster Foundation for Democracy's performance targets are set through a consultative process between the FCO and the Westminster Foundation for Democracy's executive and board. Progress against targets is formally monitored quarterly by the Westminster Foundation for Democracy's board, which is attended by the FCO.

  Wilton Park (Executive Agency)

  A target for percentage of respondents who rate Wilton Park's conference programmes highly is set out in a scorecard to the FCO's SR2000 PSA. A number of additional targets for Wilton Park are incorporated into Wilton Park's Corporate Plan and information on its performance against them is in its annual report. These additional targets are set by the FCO-led Wilton Park Departmental Board, in consultation with Wilton Park, and achievement is monitored by the Departmental Board annually.

  Wilton Park Academic Council (advisory non-departmental public body)

  The Wilton Park Academic Council is required to endorse Wilton Park's contribution to the promotion of understanding and the solution of global problems and it produces an annual report on its work.

  Britain-Russia Centre

  The Britain-Russian Centre ceased to be an FCO executive non-departmental public body on 1 April 2003.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the Public Service Agreement targets for his Department which have been(a) revised and (b) introduced since the publication of the 2002 Departmental Report. [120870]

  Mr. Rammell
  The FCO agreed a new set of PSA targets for 2003–04 to 2005–06 under the 2002 Spending Review (SR2002). These targets were set out in the White Paper, "Spending Review 2002: Public Service Agreement Targets 2003–06" (Cm5571, July 2002). They came into effect in April 2003.
  710W
  The table at Appendix K (pages 183–87) in the FCO's 2003 Departmental Report shows the relationship between the FCO's SR2002 and SR2000 PSA targets.

  President Putin
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the programme for the state visit of President Putin; and for what reason special events for members of both Houses have not been included in the programme.[121561]

  Mr. Rammell
  As with all state visits, the programme is a mixture of traditional ceremonial, cultural and substantive elements. Members of both Houses are involved. President Putin will meet my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister for lunch and talks: as is customary he will also meet the leaders of the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Parties. Members of both Houses are also participating in the Banquets associated with the visit.

  United States
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the US Government about fund-raising activities in the USA carried out(a) by and (b) on behalf of proscribed organisations in Northern Ireland.[121164]

  Mr. MacShane
  None. The US has taken steps against all Northern Ireland terrorist organisations the UK Government has specified as not being on ceasefire. These organisations are also proscribed in the UK under the Terrorism Act 2000.

  UN Security Council Resolutions
  Tony Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what procedures are in place whereby the legality of Resolution 1422 of the UN Security Council may be judicially determined.[121055]

  Mr. Rammell
  The Government are not aware of any means by which a binding judicial decision by an international tribunal on the legality of Resolution 1422 could be made. In certain circumstances the International Court of Justice may give advisory opinions, but these are not binding. The Government have no doubt as to the legality of Resolutions 1422 and 1487.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Laxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the British High Commissioner in Harare about the situation in Zimbabwe; and what recent assessment he has made of the political situation there. [120137]

  Mr. Mullin
  The high commissioner and his staff are in daily contact with the FCO about the political, economic and humanitarian crisis in Zimbabwe.
  711W
  The political situation remains tense. MDC leader Morgan Tsvangirai is facing two charges of treason. Other opposition figures have been arrested, harassed and intimidated. Responsibility for the present state of Zimbabwe lies squarely with its present government.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he has taken within the United Nations to ensure that action is taken to end the crisis in Zimbabwe.[120453]

  Mr. Mullin
  We maintain regular contact with the UN Secretary General, the UN Development Programme (UNDP) and the World Food Programme (WFP) about Zimbabwe. We supported EU resolutions on Zimbabwe at the UN Human Rights Commission in 2002 and 2003. We will continue to encourage the UN to focus on the crisis in Zimbabwe.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Asbestos
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what actions his Department, its agencies and non-departmental public bodies are taking to comply with the requirements of the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 2002; whether he has made an estimate of the cost of compliance; and if he will make a statement. [118848]

  Mr. Pearson
  The Northern Ireland Office and Northern Ireland Departments, together with their Agencies and NDPBs, have been complying with the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 2002. Work is on-going to identify where asbestos is present, to assess the risk and to take action to manage such a risk.

  The total cost of compliance has not yet been determined as much survey and inspection work is ongoing.

  Civil Service
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many posts in the Northern Ireland civil service have been publicly advertised since 14 October 2002 for which Irish nationals have been ineligible.[120105]

  Mr. Pearson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 11 June 2003,Official Report, column 953W.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps are being taken to implement the recommendations of the Senior Civil Service Review Team on nationality restrictions.[120109]

  Mr. Pearson
  The consultation document which was issued following the review noted that the UK Government are committed in principle to introduce legislation to modernise the nationality rules, subject to the availability of parliamentary time. This remains the position.

  Education and Library Boards
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much money has been allocated by the Department of Education in each of the last five 712W
  years to Education and Library Boards in Northern Ireland to address the requirements of those who suffer from autism.[120106]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Department of Education gives Education and Library Boards a block grant each year from which they fund the various services they provide. Within their block grant Boards establish their own spending priorities and this includes their spending on Special Educational provision. Special Education Budgets do not specify expenditure on particular areas of Special Educational Need and for this reason, it is not possible separately to identify funding allocations for provision for children with Autism.

  Children with an Autistic Spectrum Disorder can receive appropriate provision in Special Schools, Units or mainstream schools. Support in mainstream schools can include classroom assistance, support from ASD Advisory Officers or specialist peripatetic teacher support.

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which Education and Library Boards use the Applied Behaviour Analysis Scheme for teaching autistic children; and how many children suffer from autism in each Education and Library Board.[120112]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Education and Library Boards support pupils with an Autistic Spectrum Disorder using a range of methods. These will include aspects of ABA (Applied Behavioural Analysis), TEACCH (Treatment and Education of Autistic Children and those with related Communications Handicaps) and PECS (Picture Exchange Communication System).

  All Educational Psychologists are trained in ABA techniques as part of their degree qualification.

  The Belfast Education and Library Board and the South-Eastern Education and Library Board are each currently funding four children on specific ABA Programmes.

  Figures for the number of children known to the Education and Library Boards to have an ASD are as follows*

  * As of June 2001. Figures taken from the Task Group Report on Autism.

  Education board

  Number of pupils

  North-Eastern

  112

  South-Eastern

  276

  Southern

  242

  Western

  145

  Belfast

  194

  Euro
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the criteria are for the appointment of the members of the Northern Ireland Committee on preparations for the euro; and what the terms of the appointment are.[120620]
  713W
  Mr. Pearson
  As I announced on 9 June 2003, the Committee will include representation from central and local government, Trades Unions, the voluntary sector, consumer organisations and business. Decisions on the practical arrangements, including the criteria for appointment to the Committee have still to be taken and these will be announced as soon as possible.

  Hospital Appointments
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland pursuant to his answer of 9 June 2003,Official Report, column 699W, on hospital appointments, how many (a) out-patient attendances,(b) accident and emergency assessments and (c) inpatient admissions there were at hospitals in Northern Ireland during the first quarter of 2002. [121010]

  Angela Smith
  Information on hospital activity in Northern Ireland during the first quarter of 2002 is detailed in the following table.

  Activity

  1 January 2002 to 31 March 2002

  (a) Out-patient Attendances—Patients Seen

  376,565

  (b) Accident and Emergency Attendances

  157,746

  (c) Normal In-patient Admissions

  80,905

  (c) Day Cases Admissions

  34,471

  (c) Total In-patient Activity (normal in-patient + day case admissions)

  115,376

  Housing (Room Heaters)
  Mr. Gregory Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many glass-fronted room heaters have been replaced by the Northern Ireland Housing Executive in each of the past 10 years; what health and safety procedures are in place to ensure that second-hand room heaters pose no risk to those tenants having them installed; and how often these procedures are updated.[119713]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Housing Executive is currently in the process of replacing all glass-fronted room heaters with oil or natural gas systems and, over the last four years the number of room heaters in Housing Executive homes has been reduced from around 52,000 to 25,284. It is expected that the majority of the remaining room heaters will be replaced over the next three years. Figures for the 10 individual years are not available in the form requested and could be obtained only at a disproportionate cost.

  Damaged or unserviceable glass-fronted room heaters are only replaced with second-hand units as an interim measure in situations where a full-scale heating replacement scheme has already been programmed. Each second-hand room heater is examined and assessed by a major heating contractor and if deemed to be in good order it is then fully re-conditioned before it is re-fitted. During the re-conditioning process the appliance is thoroughly checked and tested in the same manner and to the same standards applied to a new appliance. At the time of commissioning, the installation is checked in-situ to the same standards as a new appliance and a commissioning certificate produced. This procedure is now only into its second year of operation and is presently under review.

  Insurance Premiums
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many jobs in Northern Ireland have been lost where the reason given was high insurance premiums in each year since 1997. [120367]

  Mr. Pearson
  It is not possible to identify the number of jobs that have been lost as a result of high insurance premiums in Northern Ireland as information on the reason for job losses is not provided when redundancies are confirmed to the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment.

  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on(a) the changes in the number of insurance underwriters in Northern Ireland and (b) the impact of the level of insurance premiums in Northern Ireland.[120368]

  Mr. Pearson
  The Financial Services Authority has confirmed that details regarding the geographical spread of insurance underwriters within the UK are not available.

  A recent survey of Business Insurance Premiums in Northern Ireland carried out by the Department of Enterprise Trade and Investment (DETI) indicated that there was an average percentage increase of 28 per cent. in 2001 compared with 2000 and an average percentage increase of 49 per cent. in 2002 compared with 2001. DETI has been engaged in a number of activities aimed at alleviating the situation.

  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many small businesses in Northern Ireland have made representations to Invest Northern Ireland and its predecessors about the level of insurance premiums in each year since 1997.[120369]

  Mr. Pearson
  It is not possible to quantify the specific occasions on which the cost of insurance premiums has been raised with Invest NI or its predecessors. I can confirm that over the last 18 months there has been an increasing number of companies highlighting substantial rises in their insurance costs to Invest NI and the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment. My Department is actively working to ensure that the Northern Ireland dimension to this problem is recognised within Government.

  In response to the concerns raised by client companies, Invest NI has instigated five regional insurance seminars involving an experienced practitioner from the insurance industry, together with a leading risk assessor, to advise companies on ways to maximise insurance protection whilst minimising the costs of insurance premiums.

  Play Centre (Londonderry)
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland why the South East Education and Library Board did not allocate the Play Centre at Londonderry Primary School, Newtownards with Preschool Education Advisory Group (PEAG) places for(a) 2002–03 and (b) 2003–04.[118881]

  Jane Kennedy
  In each Education and Library Board area a Pre-School Education Advisory Group (PEAG) manages the allocation of pre-school places for children in their final pre-school year to settings that have
  715W
  applied to be part of the Pre-School Education Expansion Programme (PSEEP). Although the Play Centre at Londonderry Primary School requested an application form for inclusion in the Pre-School Education Expansion Programme for the 2002–03 school year, it was not returned to the PEAG before the closing date of 23 November 2001. As a result the South Eastern Education and Library Board's PEAG allocated all available places in the Programme to settings that submitted their application on time.

  Although the Play Centre at Londonderry Primary School again submitted an application for places for 2003–04 the PEAG already had sufficient pre-school places from existing providers to satisfy demand in Newtownards from children in their final pre-school year, including the Glen ward in which the Play Centre is located.

  The number of pre-school places which the South Eastern Board's Pre-school Education Advisory Group will be funding in Newtownards in 2003–04 will be sufficient to satisfy the demand from children in their final pre-school year. Additional places will only be reallocated to other providers, such as the Play Centre, if existing providers are unable to fill places and then only within the overall needs of the town.

  Post Office
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of pensioners in Northern Ireland has opened new post office card accounts since their introduction; and if he will make a statement. [119765]

  Mr. Spellar
  In Northern Ireland as at 30 May 2003, of the 24,762 pensioners in receipt of state pensions who have been invited to move to Direct Payment, 5,933 have indicated that they wanted to open a post office card account. This equated to 24 per cent. of those invited.

  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which banks operating in Northern Ireland have agreed to offer their customers automated cash access to their bank accounts at post offices. [119796]

  Mr. Spellar
  The following banks operating in Northern Ireland, allow access to their basic bank accounts via an automated service over the Post Office counter provided by the teller: Abbey National, Alliance and Leicester, Bank of Ireland, the Co-operative Bank, First Trust Bank, Halifax, HSBC, Nationwide Building Society, Northern Bank and Ulster Bank.

  The Alliance and Leicester, the Co-operative Bank and the internet banks Cahoot and Smile also provide customers with access to their current accounts at the Post Office, using cheque books and guarantee cards.

  Post-Primary Review Working Group
  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what criteria were used to select the members of the working group on the way forward on post-primary education; and how many members on that group are 716W
  drawn from organisations that are on record as opposing (a) academic selection and (b) oppose academic selection at age 11. [120658]

  Jane Kennedy
  The membership of the Post-Primary Review Working Group has been drawn from the main education interests and managing authorities that will be responsible for the development and implementation of future arrangements. The members were chosen on the basis of the range and depth of their knowledge and experience of the education system in Northern Ireland and include four former or practicing principals and a deputy director of a Further Education College. The individuals have been invited to participate on the group in a personal capacity and not as representatives of particular organisations. The views of all organisations that responded to the Burns Consultation are set out in the report published by my Department in October 2002, a copy of which has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what criteria were taken into consideration when appointing members of the working group on post-primary education in Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement; [120701]

  (2) how many members of the working group on post-primary education in Northern Ireland represent organisations which oppose academic selection (a) in principle and (b) at age 11; and if he will make a statement; [120702]

  (3) how many members of the working group on post-primary education in Northern Ireland represent organisations which support academic selection; and if he will make a statement. [120703]

  Jane Kennedy
  The membership of the Post-Primary Review Working Group has been drawn from the main education interests and managing authorities that will be responsible for the development and implementation of future arrangements. The members were chosen because of the range and depth of their knowledge and experience of the education system in Northern Ireland and include four former or practicing principals and a Deputy Director of a Further Education College. The individuals have been invited to participate on the group in a personal capacity and not as representatives of particular organisations. The views of all organisations that responded to the Burns Consultation are set out in the report published by my Department in October 2002, a copy of which has been placed in the Library.

  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions he has had with grammar school principals regarding the membership of the Post-Primary Review Working Group; and if he will make a statement. [120886]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Governing Bodies Association, which represents Voluntary Grammar Schools, was asked to submit names for consideration and a member was invited to serve on the Working Group from the names provided. Members were chosen on the basis of the range and depth of their experience and knowledge of the education system in Northern Ireland and include four practising or former school principals and one deputy director of an FE College.

  Reform and Reinvestment Initiative
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will estimate the annual regional rate increase in Northern Ireland for each £100 million of borrowing under the Reform and Reinvestment Initiative assuming a Great Britain council tax increase of 10 per cent. average. [119042]

  Mr. Pearson
  A 10 per cent. average increase in council tax in England would represent an increase in the average household bill of £91 per annum over current (2003–04) levels. Access to borrowing under the Reinvestment and Reform Initiative is dependent on the total rates product in Northern Ireland (i.e. the District and Regional rates). On the assumption that district rate and regional non-domestic rate increases are in line with recent trends, a borrowing power of £100 million in 2004–05 would require an increase in the average regional domestic rate of approximately £64 per household per annum over the 2003–04 figure. Each additional £100 million of borrowing in that year would require a further increase of around £10 per household per annum.

  Residential Care
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland pursuant to his answer of 9 June 2003,Official Report, column 700W, on residential care, if he will make a statement on the number of (a) nursing home and (b) residential care places for the elderly in Northern Ireland. [121009]

  Angela Smith
  My right hon. Friend's written answer of 9 June 2003,Official Report, column 700W, represents the best currently available information on the numbers of places for the elderly in residential care and nursing homes in Northern Ireland. It is not possible to disaggregate the number of nursing home places for the elderly, as the Department does not routinely collect this information.

  The reduction in the number of available places for the elderly in residential care over the five year period 1997 to 2002 from 4,965 to 4,596 to some extent may be attributed to a change by home owners to dual registered places in care homes, and to the increase in the provision of both domiciliary care services by the Health and Personal Social Services and in Housing Association sheltered housing for the elderly.

  Work-related Deaths/Injuries
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) work-related injuries and (b) work-related deaths were recorded in Northern Ireland in 2002. [120895]

  Mr. Pearson
  Figures are not readily available for the calendar year 2002 but the number of work-related injuries and deaths reported to enforcing authorities in Northern Ireland under the Reporting of Injuries, Diseases and Dangerous Occurrences Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1997 during the financial year 2002–03 were 4,119 and 20 respectively.

HEALTH

  Cancer
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the initiative of the National Cancer Research Network to ensure that clinical trials are developed and extended to include adolescents.[118157]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Department of Health, which funds the National Cancer Research Network is providing specific funding for a specialised research network on paediatric oncology. The network is led by the United Kingdom Children's Cancer Study Group (UKCCSG). At the suggestion of the UKCCSC, this funding includes provision for a trial co-ordinator development post for teenage and young adults. This investment reflects the importance the Department places on the development of clinical trials for adolescents with cancer.

  Chemicals
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent research he has conducted into the impact upon human health of the use of(a) bleach and (b) other chemicals in sanitary towels and related items, (c) home cleaning products, (d) detergents and (e) spray furniture polish; what advice has been given to the public relating to their use; and if he will make a statement. [119082]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Department has not carried out any research into chemicals used in sanitary towels and related items, nor has it provided any advice to the public relating to their use.

  Since 1984, the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) and the sanitary protection industry have operated a voluntary prior notification scheme for menstrual tampons. This scheme applies to the entire manufactured product, including the instructions for use. Under the scheme, manufacturers submit to Government specifications for proposed new tampons to which there have been significant changes in the design or materials. The Department scrutinises them to decide whether they pose a health hazard and checks the leaflets to ensure that they give the right health message.

  In the case of chemical products such as bleach, home cleaning products, detergents and spray furniture products, their safety is governed by the Health and Safety Commission's Chemicals (Hazard Information and Packaging for Supply) Regulations 2002. These Regulations require that manufacturers must assess a chemical product for its health effects. If dangerous, the product must be labelled with a warning symbol and phrases indicating the dangers. The particular chemical(s), which cause the product to be classified, must be named on the label. The Regulations also require that all potentially dangerous chemicals supplied to the public must be in packaging that is properly labelled and contains warnings about the potential hazards and giving advice on suitable precautions.

  Other regulations for protecting the consumer are the DTI's General Product Safety Regulations 1994 (GPSR), which implement the EC General Product

  719W
  Safety Directive (92159/EEC) and apply to all consumer products (or aspects of those products) that are not covered by specific European safety legislation. The GPSR requires manufacturers to ensure that products present no risk or only the minimum risk compatible with the product's use. In other words, producers must first take steps to reduce the hazard as far as possible, then warn about any residual hazard(s) and give advice about the precautions that consumers should take when using the product.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the impact upon(a) human and (b) animal health of the use of PVC chemicals in consumer products; what advice has been given to the public relating to their use; what restrictions have been placed on their use; and if he will make a statement. [119085]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Department has provided advice to the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) on the health effects of phthalates, which may be present in PVC used in consumer products. It has not provided any advice on the effects on animal health, nor has it given any advice to the public.

  The safety of chemical products, such as those made from PVC, is governed by the Health and Safety Commission's Chemicals (Hazard Information and Packaging for Supply) Regulations 2002. These regulations require that manufacturers must assess a chemical product for its health effects. If dangerous, the product must be labelled with a warning symbol and phrases indicating the dangers. The particular chemical(s) which cause a product to be classified must be named on the label. The regulations also require that all potentially dangerous chemicals supplied to the public must be in packaging which is properly labelled and contains warnings about the potential hazards and giving advice on sensible precautions.

  Other regulations for protecting the consumer are the DTI's General Product Safety Regulations 1994(GPSR), which implement the EC General Product Safety Directive (92159/EEC) and apply to all consumer products (or aspects of those products) that are not covered by specific European safety legislation. The GPSR requires manufacturers to ensure that products present no risks or only minimum risk, compatible with the product's use. In other words, producers must first take steps to reduce the hazard as far as possible, then warn about any residual hazard(s) and give advice about the precautions that consumers should take when using the product.

  Community Health Councils/Patients Forums
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) whether structures to replace community health councils will be in place and fully operational before community health councils are abolished; [120651]

  (2) what plans he has for the smooth transfer of responsibilities from community health councils to patients' forums. [120653]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Patients' forums are just one part of the new system for patient and public involvement being introduced to replace Community Health Councils (CHCs). Already, much of what will 720W
  replace CHCs is in place—Patients' Advice and Liaison Services exist in almost all trusts, Overview and Scrutiny Committees have had the new power to scrutinise health since January 2003, independent complaints advocacy services will be available across England from 1 September 2003 and the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health (CPPIH) has been in existence since 1 January 2003. Staff support for patients' forums will be in place by 1 September 2003, and by 1 December 2003 when CHCs will be abolished, all patients' forums will be in place.

  Work is under way, with the CPPIH, the Association for Community Health Councils in England and Wales and CHC members and staff, to ensure the smooth transfer of responsibilities where they have not already been picked up elsewhere and to consider how best to transfer local CHC knowledge to the new patients' forums.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether members of community health councils will be(a) given an opportunity to become members of patients forums and (b) invited to form the first tranche of the new membership of patients' forums. [120652]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Recruitment to patients' forums will be conducted by the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health, through a process of open competition. Community Health Council members will be encouraged to apply to join patients' forums, although they will not be invited specifically to form a first tranche of members of forums.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the patients' forums will enter into effect. [120656]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The intention is to commence the legislation that will give effect to patients' forums on 1 September 2003. From that date, patients' forums will be established and the intention is that members will have been appointed to all forums by the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health by 1 December 2003. I refer the hon. Member to the statement made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy) on 4 June 2003,Official Report, columns 22–23WS.

  Drug Trials
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to require the disclosure of company drug trial results.[119775]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  There are no plans currently in place to require disclosure of company drug trial results. The Government welcome the pharmaceutical industry's support for the Department of Health's research governance framework for health and social care, which recognises that it is researchers' responsibility to ensure that research findings are opened to critical review through the accepted scientific and professional channels and disseminated promptly once established. The Government encourage the pharmaceutical industry to disclose drug trial results to the maximum extent consistent with regulatory process and intellectual property rights.

  Drug Users
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps the Government is taking to(a) reduce the proportion of people aged under 25 reporting use of heroin and cocaine by 25 per cent. by 2008 and 25 per cent. by 2005, (b) reduce the levels of repeat offending among drug misusing offenders by 25 per cent. by 2005 and 50 per cent. by 2008; (c) increase the participation of problem drug misusers including prisoners in drug treatment programmes which have a positive impact on health and crime by 66 per cent. by 2005 and 100 per cent. by 2008 and (d) reduce access to the drugs which cause most harm, with particular reference to heroin and cocaine among young people, by 25 per cent. by 2005 and 50 per cent. by 2008.[120881]

  Caroline Flint
  I have been asked to reply.

  We have not abandoned our targets.

  The review found that although the broad thrust of the strategy was right it needed a greater focus on the most dangerous drugs, the most damaged communities and problematic drug users—those whose addiction and chaotic lifestyles caused the most harm to themselves and others. The targets also needed to be revised to ensure that they were challenging but achievable. The Home Affairs Committee in its inquiry "The Government's Drugs Policy: is it working?" supported these findings.

  The SR2000 and SR2002 targets are set out in the list. The targets are monitored and delivered by departments working closely together, although each target has a lead department which co-ordinates delivery. These are also indicated in the list.

  The Updated Drug Strategy published in December 2002 sets out progress made, the new targets and the range of policies and interventions planned to achieve them. A copy is in the Library.

  We will continue to report publicly on our progress through general reports on the strategy and through specific statistical bulletins. As with previous targets, more detailed information on how the new targets will be measured is set out in technical notes available on departmental websites.

  The Technical Notes can be found at:
  http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs/sr2002psa_tn.pdf, for the Home Office (HO);
  http://www.doh.gov.uk/psa/index.htm, for the Department of Health (DH);
  www.hmce.gov.uk/about/excellence/cetechnotes-03.pdf, for Her Majesty's Customs and Excise (HMCE). Please note that this note is currently being revised.

  Public Service Agreement (PSA) targets from the previous spending review (SR2000) and the corresponding new targets from this latest spending review (SR2002)

  Young People (HO lead):

  SR2000 target: reduce the proportion of people under the age of 25 reporting the use of class A drugs 25 per cent. by 2005 and by 50 per cent. by 2008.
  722W
  New target: reduce the use of class A drugs and the frequent use of any illicit drug among all young people under the age of 25 especially by the most vulnerable young people.

  Tackling Supply (HMCE lead):

  SR2000 target: reduce the availability of Class A drugs by 25 per cent. by 2005 and 50 per cent. by 2008.

  New target: reduce the availability of illegal drugs by increasing:
  the proportion of heroin and cocaine targeted on the UK which is taken out;
  the disruption/dismantling of those criminal groups responsible for supplying substantial quantities of class A drugs to the UK market; and
  the recovery of drug-related criminal assets.

  New additional target (Foreign and Commonwealth Office lead): Contribute to the reduction of opium production in Afghanistan, with poppy cultivation reduced by 70 per cent. within five years and elimination within 10 years.

  Drug related crime (HO lead):

  SR2000 target: reduce the levels of repeat offending among drug misusing offenders by 25 per cent. by 2005 and 50 per cent. by 2008.

  New target: reduce drug-related crime, including as measured by the proportion of offenders testing positive for arrest.

  Treatment (DH lead):

  SR2000 Target: Increase the participation of problem drug users in drug treatment programmes by 55 per cent. by 2004 and by 100 per cent. by 2008.

  New target: Increase the participation of problem drug users in drug treatment programmes by 55 per cent. by 2004 and by 100 per cent. by 2008, and increase year on year the proportion of users successfully sustaining or completing treatment programmes.

  Feminine Hygiene Products
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what regulations govern the materials used to make tampons and sanitary towels;[120252]

  (2) which Government body regulates the makers of feminine hygiene products;[120253]

  (3) what plans he has to increase the controls over the composition of feminine hygiene products.[120258]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The tampons industry is self-regulated. Since 1984, the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) and the sanitary protection industry have operated a voluntary prior notification scheme for menstrual tampons. Under the scheme, manufacturers submit to the DTI written details of any significant changes to new or current products. The notification applies to the entire manufactured product including the tampon itself. Approximately 95 per cent., of tampon manufacturers in this country are covered by this scheme. The scheme includes a code of practice, agreed with the DTI, which all the manufacturers who belong to the scheme must comply with. This covers product safety assessment of all materials used. The notification scheme is the industry's response to concerns regarding toxic shock syndrome. Under the scheme, the
  723W
  manufacturers submit to the Government specifications for proposed new tampons to which there have been significant changes in the designs or materials. Submissions under the scheme are evaluated by a toxicologist in the Department of Health, who determines whether they pose a health hazard and provides advice to the DTI.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what control exists over the levels of dioxins in tampons and sanitary products; [120254]

  (2) what the maximum permitted amounts of dioxins allowed in tampons and sanitary products are; [120255]

  (3) what the maximum annual exposure rates to dioxins consistent with no risk to health are; [120256]

  (4) how female sanitary products are screened for the presence of dioxins; by whom; and to whom the reports are supplied. [120257]

  Dr. Ladyman
  There are no controls over the levels of dioxins in tampons and sanitary towels. Trace amounts of dioxins can be formed in cotton used in tampons and sanitary towels during bleaching processes using chlorine. The levels, if detectable, are very low and pose no risk to human health. There is evidence that some manufacturers use unbleached cotton for these products and hence exposure to dioxins in these cases does not occur.

  The toxicology of dioxins has been extensively reviewed by many national and international expert groups. The most recent evaluation, by the Committee on Toxicity of Food, Consumer Products and the Environment, was completed in 2001. The potential level of exposure to dioxins associated with use of bleached cotton in sanitary towels and tampons would be considerably lower that the recent tolerable daily intake set by the Committee.

  Food Standards
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on current developments within the Meat Hygiene Service, with specific reference to the re-evaluation of the Over 30 Months Scheme.[118963]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 12 June 2003]: The Food Standards Agency (FSA) is currently reviewing the over-thirty-months rule, which currently stops most older cattle from entering the food chain. This review could have an impact on the Over Thirty Months Scheme (OTMS), an associated market support measure, run by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra). The Meat Hygiene Service (MHS), an executive agency of the FSA, provides supervision, inspection and monitoring services for the OTMS under a service level agreement with Defra.

  Two options for change to the over-thirty-months rule are currently the subject of consultation by the FSA. These are:
  allowing cattle born after 1 August 1996 into the food supply; or
  allowing cattle of any age into the food supply.

  Under both options, all cattle over thirty months of age entering the food supply would be tested for BSE.
  724W
  The consultation closes on 20 June 2003 and the Board of the FSA is expected on 10 July 2003 to conclude the review, and decide on advice to Ministers. The MHS is closely involved with work currently under way to identify and consider the implications for its activities, should either option be chosen for implementation.

  Food Supplements
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what recent representations he has received from Biocare in relation to the provisions of the(a) Food Supplements Directive and the (b) Food Supplements (England) Regulations; and what response he has made to those representations.[119834]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  No such representations have been received from BioCare.

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assesment he has made of the impact on(a) consumer choice and (b) the United Kingdom food supplements industry of the possible setting by the European Union of maximum permitted levels of nutrients in food supplements at levels substantially lower than those permitted in the United Kingdom.[119880]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Article 5 of Directive 2002/46/EC on Food Supplements sets out principles for setting maximum limits for vitamins and minerals in food supplements, although no specific figures have yet been set.

  Should the future setting of maximum permitted levels of nutrients in food supplements result in levels substantially lower than those currently used in the United Kingdom, this could, in the long run, result in the removal from the UK market of certain high-dose products, with a consequent reduction in consumer choice and impact on the UK food supplements industry.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the implications for United Kingdom treaty obligations if the(a) Welsh Assembly and (b) Scottish Parliament were not to approve the Food Supplements (Wales) Regulations.[120067]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  If the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament did not approve the Food Supplements (Wales) Regulations and the Food Supplements (Scotland) Regulations respectively, the United Kingdom would not have fulfilled its obligations under the EC Treaty to fully transpose the Food Supplements Directive. This would be a serious breach of the UK's obligations under the Treaty and would attract infraction proceedings from the Commission.

  Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many responses have been received by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority to the sixth edition of their code of practice; and how many were from(a) individual patients, (b) clinics and (c) professional bodies.[121359]
  725W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) has so far received five responses to its code of practice consultation which began on 19 May 2003 and closes on 8 August 2003. Two of these responses are from HFEA licensed clinics, two are from professional bodies and the other is from a general practitioner. The HFEA has sent the draft of the sixth code of practice to over 200 clinicians, professional organisations and patient support groups.

  Infectious Patients
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received concerning a lack of adequate(a) isolation rooms and (b) negative pressure rooms to deal with infectious patients in hospital.[120078]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  We have not received any representations on these specific issues. Chief executives were required to carry out a local risk assessment to determine the appropriate provision for isolation facilities within their trusts in 2000.

  Mental Health Bill
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when he will publish the responses to the consultation exercise on the Mental Health Bill;[121236]

  (2) when he plans to publish the Mental Health Bill; and what impact the consultation exercise has had on the Bill's provisions. [121237]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [holding answer 23 June 2003]: I refer the hon. Member to the response given to him on 2 April 2003, Official Report, column 774W by my hon. Friend the then Minister of State (Jacqui Smith).

  We continue to give careful consideration to all the thoughtful responses so that we can ensure that the legislation delivers the best possible outcomes for patients. The Bill will be introduced as soon as parliamentary time allows.

  Pain Management
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on pain management.[118997]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Pain management is an important component of most patients' care. Patients may suffer from different types of pain, such as chronic pain caused by long term conditions such as arthritis, palliative care pain caused by terminal conditions such as cancer and acute pain, which is an intense short-lived pain including post-operative pain.

  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) has been reviewing pain management techniques as part of the supportive and palliative care guidance. This provides a clearer idea of what therapies are effective and areas where further work is needed. Part A of the guidance is available in draft on the NICE website at http://www.nice.org.uk/.

  The Clinical Standards Advisory Group (CSAG) report on pain services shows that many national health service trusts have developed excellent services, but we are aware that there are variations in access to services throughout the country. The CSAG report made
  726W
  recommendations to NHS acute trusts and commissioners on how pain services should be delivered. The Dr. Foster and Pain Society published its report "Adult Chronic Pain Management Services in the UK" on 11 June 2003, and should provide helpful information to the NHS on the delivery of the service.

  Rural Proofing
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he last met the Chairman of the Countryside Agency to discuss rural proofing.[115579]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  My hon. Friend, the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Ms Blears) has had regular contact with the chairman of the Countryside Agency and other Department's Ministers through the work of DA(RR), the Cabinet subcommittee on rural renewal. She also had a separate meeting in January with the chairman of the Countryside Agency, in company with my right hon. Friend, the Minister for Rural Affairs, to discuss this Department's contribution to rural proofing and related issues.

  The Department's application of rural proofing is covered in detail in the Countryside Agency report, Rural Proofing 2003–04, published earlier this month.

  Smoking Bans
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will take powers to ban smoking in areas next to children's playgrounds. [119883]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  There are no plans to take powers to ban smoking in areas next to children's playgrounds in England.

  In Scotland and Wales, responsibility for this matter rests with the devolved administrations. While the institutions in Northern Ireland are dissolved, responsibility rests with Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office.

TREASURY

  EU Programmes (Fraud)
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much fraud has been detected in EU programmes and initiatives in the UK in each year since 1997. [121162]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The European Commission does not identify amounts of established fraud against the Community budget. The UK, along with all member states, reports all detected irregularities (which include fraud) to the Commission. Details of the amounts reported can be found in the Commission's annual "Fight against Fraud" reports. The most recent "Fight Against Fraud" report was published in July 2002 and can be accessed from the European Union's website http://europa.eu.int.

  NHS Statistics
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many NHS patients died last year as a result of consuming licensed medicines.[120678]
  727W
  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. Jonathon Djanogly, dated 24 June 2003:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question asking how many NHS patients died last year as a result of consuming licensed medicines.(120678)
  Information from routine death registration only enables ONS to identify deaths certified as due to drug poisoning, and those recorded at death as resulting from adverse reactions to drugs taken in therapeutic doses. The latest available data on both of these are for 2001. In that year, there were 2,898 deaths certified as due to drug poisoning1 and 133 deaths recorded as being from adverse reactions to drugs taken in therapeutic doses2.
  It is not possible to say how many of these deaths were to people receiving treatment as NHS patients. In particular, a substantial number of deaths due to drug poisoning were from drugs which are often misused (1,623 in 2001) or from medicines taken at the patient's own initiative.
  1 Defined using the International Classification of Diseases codes F11-F16, F18-F19, X40-X44, X60-X64, Y10-Y14, X85 as the underlying cause of death.
  2 Defined using the International Classification of Diseases codes Y40-Y59 as the underlying or secondary cause of death.

  Benefits Uprating
  Mr. Howard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to the answer of 30 April 2003,Official Report, columns 371–72W, on benefits uprating, if he will make a statement on the role intended for RPIX in the uprating of the basic state pension. [121552]

  John Healey
  I refer the right hon. and learned Gentleman to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 9 June 2003,Official Report, column 414, in which he confirmed that pensions and benefits will be calculated on exactly the same basis as now.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 19 May from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Naveed Mahmid Zakaria. [121432]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue replied to my right hon. Friend on behalf of the Chancellor on 17 June 2003 and very much regret having been unable to do so sooner. The Tax Credit Office aims to reply to 80 per cent. of complaints within 15 working days and will measure their performance and report against that aim in due course.

  Economic and Monetary Union
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his statement of 9 June 2003,Official Report, column 411, on Economic and Monetary Union, what estimate he has made of how long it would take to enable supply to balance demand in the housing market in the event of the introduction of simpler planning guidance, the speeding up of decisions, reserve powers to call in applications and binding local plans. [121418]
  728W
  Mr. Boateng
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) on 20 June 2003,Official Report, column 457W.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what meetings he plans to attend with other EU finance ministers at which the interpretation of the Stability and Growth Pact will be discussed.[121538]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Chancellor has frequent discussions with his EU colleagues on a wide range of issues. The next meeting of the Council of Economic and Finance Ministers is on 15 July.

  Harmonised Index of Consumer Prices
  Claire Ward
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the impact upon inflation-linked pensions of the adoption of the harmonised index of consumer prices.[121051]

  Dawn Primarolo
  In his statement on 9 June the Chancellor confirmed that pensions and benefits and index-linked gilts would be calculated on exactly the same basis as now. The Chancellor had previously made clear that the Treasury review of the inflation target was being examined from a monetary policy perspective.

  Income Tax
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the estimated yield would be in the current financial year of a top rate of income tax of 50 per cent. on incomes of £150,000 and above if all other rates and allowances were to remain the same.[120514]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The additional full-year yield of a 50 per cent. rate of tax on taxable income over £150,000 in 2003–04 is £3.6 billion. This estimate is based on the Survey of Personal Incomes 2000–01 and is consistent with the April 2003 Budget.

  Inland Revenue (Scottish Charities)
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations the Inland Revenue has received from Mr. Robert Winter of Wendover, Bucks, about the operation under Scottish charity regulations of(a) Solutions RMC Ltd. and (b) Breast Cancer Research Scotland; and what requests for information about the operation of charity law in Scotland the Inland Revenue has received from Mr. Winter.[121197]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue's Charity offices have not been able to trace any correspondence from Mr. Winter.

  Israel
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what(a) payments have been made and (b) responses have been received from the Government of Israel following the implementation of the Community Customs Code (Council Regulation EEC no 2913/92). [121671]

  John Healey
  Council Regulation EEC no 2913/92 provides for the customs rules to be applied throughout the Community. It places no obligations on Israel or any other third country to make payments or provide information.

  Job Advertisements
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans his Department has to advertise posts in the Scottish press. [120707]

  John Healey
  HM Treasury usually advertise posts in the national press and specialist publications as appropriate.

  Lease Duty
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the total additional revenue that will be raised from the proposals to increase the charge to lease duty contained in Section 56 and Schedule 5 of the Finance Bill.[121446]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Estimates of the total additional revenue from the proposals to increase the charge to lease duty contained in Section 56 and Schedule 5 of the Finance Bill 2003 were given in table A2.1 of the Budget 2003 report.

  Ministerial Meetings
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will reply to the request for information from the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration concerning ministerial meetings.[120446]

  John Healey
  No such request has been received from the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration.

  National Insurance (Top-up Payments)
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people paid national insurance top-up payments in each year since 1992–03. [119916]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Numbers of people paying each class of national insurance contributions are published by ONS in the Annual Abstract in table 10.2. Copies are held in the Library of the House.

  Public Service Agreements
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much the(a) establishment and (b) operation of HM Treasury's on-line reporting of progress against public service agreements has cost per year.[121078]

  Mr. Boateng
  The on-line reporting of progress against public service agreements was launched in April 2003. The site was constructed using existing IT systems and no external resources were required, other than software procurement costing under £100. Going forward the operation of the website will be based around existing performance information streams, and will require little resource input.

  Race Relations
  Angela Eagle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer 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.[117468]
  730W
  John Healey
  As part of our commitment to equality and diversity the Treasury published its Race Equality Scheme in May 2002. This identified a number of Treasury business priority areas relating to the requirements of the Race Relations Amendment Act 2000 including fiscal policy, improving the quality and cost effectiveness of public service provision and regulation of financial services. The Department will be reviewing progress on diversity this year and will report on our diversity objectives in our annual Departmental Report.

  Sewel Motions
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list Sewel motions passed by the Scottish Parliament since May 1999 that apply to his Department's responsibilities and Government bills he has sponsored. [120700]

  John Healey
  Two Bills sponsored by the Treasury have been the subject of Sewel motions in the Scottish Parliament, as indicated:

  Bill

  Sewel motion approved

  Financial Services and Markets

  23 June 1999

  Government Resources and Accounts

  6 July 2000

  Stamp Duty
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what study he has made of the likely economic effect on the leasehold property market and occupational business leases of the changes to stamp duty proposed by the Finance Bill 2003.[121438]

  Dawn Primarolo
  A wide variety of economic and statistical data was used in developing the changes proposed in Finance Bill 2003.

  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with the Small Business Service about the impact of stamp duty on future business start-ups. [121439]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government have held, and are continuing to hold, discussions with a wide variety of representative bodies and individual businesses, large and small. The Small Business Service has participated in those discussions.

  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent representations he has received from the Small Business Service on his proposal to impose stamp duty on commercial leases. [121440]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government received no written representations from the Small Business Service. However we received representations from other representative bodies, and from individual businesses, large and small.

  Tax Credits
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps are taken to ensure that claimants for tax credits whose claims have not been settled are told how to obtain interim payments. [119515]
  731W
  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Member to my statement of 28 April 2003,Official Report, column 53, and to my comments during the debate in Westminster Hall on 4 June 2003, Official Report, column 122WH.

LEADER OF THE HOUSE

  Government Reshuffle
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Leader of the House if he will make a statement on the location of the office of his Department following the reshuffle.[121461]

  Peter Hain
  The office of the Leader of the House of Commons is currently located at the Privy Council Office, 2 Carlton Gardens, SW1 and in the House of Commons.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Government Agencies
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans there are to relocate Government agencies and departments to(a) Teesside and (b) Tyneside.[120740]

  Mr. Boateng
  The scope for relocating Government activity is being considered by Sir Michael Lyons. His review was announced in the Chancellor's budget statement on 9 April. Details of the review, including the consultation launched on 19 June, can be found on the HM Treasury website at www.hm-treasury.gov.uk

HOME OFFICE

  Protection Against Cruel Tethering Act
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many convictions there have been in each of the last five years in England under the Protection Against Cruel Tethering Act 1988. [118989]

  Caroline Flint
  The Protection of Animals Act 1911 is classified as a whole on the Home Office Court Proceedings database so that it is not possible to distinguish offences of cruel tethering from other offences of cruelty to animals. There were 975 persons proceeded against for all offences under the Protection of Animals Act 1911 in England and Wales in 2001, 754 of whom were found guilty.

  Air Weapons
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many incidents there have been in each of the past 10 years of air weapons having been taken from young people between the ages of 14 and 17 in(a) public places and (b) private places.[120749]

  Caroline Flint
  The information requested is not kept centrally. However, the following table shows the number of people under 17 years of age convicted or cautioned between 1992 and 2001 (the last year for which figures are available) for having an uncovered air weapon in a public place.732W

  Convicted or cautioned

  1992

  448

  1993

  361

  1994

  462

  1995

  396

  1996

  301

  1997

  297

  1998

  284

  1999

  251

  2000

  202

  2001

  146

  Anti-drugs Strategy
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which targets have been(a) abandoned, (b) retained and (c) newly adopted following the updated drug strategy; and how progress on targets is to be (i) monitored and (ii) reported.[120807]

  Caroline Flint
  I have been asked to reply.

  We have not abandoned our targets.

  The review found that although the broad thrust of the strategy was right, it needed a greater focus on the most dangerous drugs, the most damaged communities and problematic drug users—those whose addiction and chaotic lifestyles caused the most harm to themselves and others. The targets also needed to be revised to ensure that they were challenging but achievable. The Home Affairs Committee in its inquiry, "The Government's Drugs Policy: Is It Working?", supported these findings.

  The SR2000 and SR2002 targets are set out in the list. The targets are monitored and delivered by Departments working closely together, although each target has a lead Department which co-ordinates delivery. These are also indicated in the list.

  The Updated Drug Strategy, published in December 2002, sets out progress made, the new targets and the range of policies and interventions planned to achieve them. A copy is in the Library.

  We will continue to report publicly on our progress through general reports on the strategy and through specific statistical bulletins. As with previous targets, more detailed information on how the new targets will be measured is set out in technical notes available on departmental websites.

  The Technical Notes can be found at:
  http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs/sr2002psa_tn.pdf, for the Home Office (HO);
  http://www.doh.gov.uk/psa/index.htm, for the Department of Health (DH); and
  www.hmce.gov.uk/about/excellence/cetechnotes-03.pdf, for Her Majesty's Customs and Excise (HMCE). Please note that this note is currently being revised.

  Public Service Agreement (PSA) targets from the previous spending review (SR2000) and the corresponding new targets from this latest spending review (SR2002).
  733W
  Young People (HO lead):

  SR2000 target: reduce the proportion of people under the age of 25 reporting the use of class A drugs 25 per cent. by 2005 and by 50 per cent. by 2008.

  New target: reduce the use of class A drugs and the frequent use of any illicit drug among all young people under the age of 25, especially by the most vulnerable young people.

  Tackling Supply (HMCE lead):

  SR2000 target: reduce the availability of Class A drugs by 25 per cent. by 2005 and 50 per cent. by 2008.

  New target: reduce the availability of illegal drugs by increasing:
  the proportion of heroin and cocaine targeted on the UK which is taken out;
  the disruption/dismantling of those criminal groups responsible for supplying substantial quantities of class A drugs to the UK market; and
  the recovery of drug-related criminal assets.

  New additional target (Foreign and Commonwealth Office lead): Contribute to the reduction of opium production in Afghanistan, with poppy cultivation reduced by 70 per cent. within five years and elimination within 10 years.

  Drug related crime (HO lead):

  SR2000 target: reduce the levels of repeat offending among drug misusing offenders by 25 per cent. by 2005 and 50 per cent. by 2008.

  New target: reduce drug-related crime, including as measured by the proportion of offenders testing positive for arrest.

  Treatment (DH lead):

  SR2000 Target: increase the participation of problem drug users in drug treatment programmes by 55 per cent. by 2004 and by 100 per cent. by 2008.

  New target: increase the participation of problem drug users in drug treatment programmes by 55 per cent. by 2004 and by 100 per cent. by 2008, and increase year-on-year the proportion of users successfully sustaining or completing treatment programmes.

  Coalfield Communities
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many official visits were made to coalfield communities by Home Office ministers in 2002. [119264]

  Mr. Blunkett
  Home Office Ministers undertake a wide programme of visits. In 2002 the ministerial team visited for example Doncaster, Aberdare, Gwent, Stoke-on-Trent and Wakefield.

  A number of our Ministers live in or on the edge of such communities.

  Corporate Killing
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it his policy to increase the criminal liability of individual directors on corporate killing. [118733]
  734W
  Paul Goggins
  The intention of the proposals on corporate killing will be to address the failure of the criminal justice system to deal successfully with systemic corporate management failure, particularly in relation to large companies, which results in death. It is not our intention to target the criminal liability of individual directors. Where the failure is on the part of an individual, he should be prosecuted. The present gap is where the failure is collective.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 6 May 2003 from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mohmed Abushema. [121431]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I wrote to my right hon. Friend on 17 June 2003.

  Crack Cocaine Addiction
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research he has commissioned into treatment for crack cocaine addiction; and if he will make a statement.[120916]

  Caroline Flint
  The National Treatment Agency (NTA) has carried out a review of available evidence on crack cocaine treatment and has issued guidance to service providers and commissioners to support service development, as part of the National Crack Plan, published in January 2003.

  The evidence suggests that cocaine misuse is treatable and many approaches already familiar to drug services in Britain work well, though none are specific to the treatment of crack dependence. The NTA guidance makes use of this research by identifying issues that local commissioners need to consider in developing effective treatment services.

  Emergency Vehicles
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to(a) issue guidance and (b) write to chief constables to advise police forces not to prosecute ambulance and other emergency vehicle drivers for exceeding the speed limits while transporting human tissue and human organs.[120023]

  Ms Blears
  I am very aware of the current concerns about the legal position of vehicles which exceed the speed limit while transporting human tissue or human organs. I am in discussion on this with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport (Alistair Darling), and will consider in the light of this what guidance or clarification of the law might be necessary.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) ambulance and (b) other emergency vehicle drivers have been prosecuted by police forces for exceeding the speed limit while transporting human (a) tissue and (b) organs in each year since 1984. [120072]

  Ms Blears
  The requested information is not available centrally.

  Female Prisoners
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what plans he has to reduce the number of women in prison for non-violent offences; [119980]

  (2) what plans he has to reduce re-offending among women released from prison; [119981]

  (3) whether it is his policy to reduce the female prison population; [119982]

  (4) what assessment has been made of the scope for the awarding of non-custodial sentences for women who are mothers. [120019]

  Paul Goggins
  The significant increase in the female prison population, and the wider consequences of this in terms of disruption to their families, particularly their children, underlines the importance of responding specifically to the particular needs and characteristics of women offenders.

  We are taking forward the Women's Offending Reduction Programme over the next three years in order to promote a more distinct response to the range of factors that have an impact on why women offend, and encourages joint working between departments, agencies and other relevant organisations. A primary focus will be on improving community based interventions that are better tailored to the needs of women, and encouraging greater use of community disposals to ensure that custody is only used for women offenders who really need to be there.

  It is, of course, for the courts to decide what sentence is appropriate in individual cases, but we intend to support and encourage greater use of community sentences for women by making sure that there is a comprehensive package of community interventions and services to meet their particular needs, including child care facilities, safe housing, drug treatment or mental health services. We will continue to ensure that the courts are made fully aware of the community options that are available.

  We are also introducing new sentencing powers in the Criminal Justice Bill that will allow offenders on short custodial sentences to focus their rehabilitative work in the community, enabling them to maintain family ties and employment. The Criminal Justice Bill will introduce 'Custody minus', under which offenders will have a custodial sentence of under 12 months suspended providing they follow set requirements in the community, breach of which would return them to prison.

  There is a new sentence of intermittent custody, under which offenders can spend part of the week in custody and part 'on licence' in the community. One of the pilots for this sentence will be at a women's prison, Her Majesty's Prison Morton Hall. Intermittent Custody will provide an alternative to full-time custody for suitable offenders and will enable them to serve their sentence in a way which dovetails more closely with their personal circumstances.

  For women who do need to be held in custody, resettlement is a vital element of the Women's Offending Reduction Programme. More effective re-integration
  736W
  into the community for women prisoners on release should have a positive impact on re-offending rates. The implementation of the Women's Estate resettlement strategy will ensure that women are kept as close to home as possible, that good family ties are maintained to minimise the impact on children separated from their mothers, and necessary local community links are made to meet the range of women's resettlement needs.

  Gloucestershire Constabulary
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what the first date since 1 January was on which he received a section 44 authorisation from Gloucestershire Constabulary in relation to RAF Fairford; [119937]

  (2) when since 1 January he has confirmed section 44 authorisations submitted by Gloucestershire Constabulary; [119938]

  (3) what reasons were given by Gloucestershire Constabulary for each section 44 authorisation. [119939]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I can confirm that authorisations under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 have been made by Gloucestershire Constabulary and confirmed by Ministers. An authorisation may be given only for the purpose of preventing acts of terrorism. It is a longstanding policy of this and previous administrations not to comment on operational counter-terrorist measures and it would be inappropriate for me to elaborate further.

  Home Security
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has to assist disadvantaged people in providing for home security in poorer areas; and if he will make a statement on measures to be taken when a home has been repeatedly burgled.[119573]

  Ms Blears
  Under the Crime Reduction Programme, around 200 of the 250 reducing burglary projects involved some form of target hardening for houses that had been burgled or were otherwise considered vulnerable. The projects were all in areas with high burglary rates, which correlate closely with areas of deprivation. We also provided home security improvements to around 55,000 low income pensioners living in areas with burglary rates above the national average.

  The Crime Reduction Programme has now been replaced by the Building Safer Communities fund (BSC). BSC funding is mainly distributed directly to Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships and it is open to individual Partnerships to introduce target hardening for disadvantaged people, if this accords with local priorities and after consultation with the regional Home Office Director. Reducing burglary is a priority for more than four-fifths of Partnerships and many are undertaking target hardening schemes.

  The Police Standards Unit has developed a model of best practice and a menu of tactical options for tackling repeat burglary. It includes such things as target hardening, fast-track processing of DNA, watch

  737W
  schemes (such as Neighbourhood Watch), installation of CCTV and alarms, high visibility patrolling (from police, community safety officers etc.) and better use of intelligence. It also includes a tool to allow household risks and requirements to be assessed. This is being tested in several forces prior to the results being more widely disseminated.

  The results of the British Crime Survey indicate that the risk of burglary is inversely related to the level of household security. Householders can, therefore, reduce their chances of being re-victimised by fitting and properly using good quality door and window locks; fencing and gates; alarms etc.

  Immigration
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many fast track visas have been granted to non-EU migrants each year since 1997. [120295]

  Beverley Hughes
  Information on the number of work permits issued on the basis of the Shortage Occupation List (to which the term 'fast track visas' is assumed to refer) is only available from 2000 onwards. The number of such permits issued over this period is as follows:

  Number

  2000

  24,485

  2001

  47,654

  2002

  49,572

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many non-EU citizens have been granted work permits in the United Kingdom in each year since 1992.[120296]

  Beverley Hughes
  The total number of work permit approvals for each year since 1995 (the first year for which information is available) is as follows:

  Number

  1995

  34,862

  1996

  38,256

  1997

  44,958

  1998

  53,962

  1999

  60,743

  2000

  88,651

  2001

  120,823

  2002

  136,151

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the target number of work permits to be issued was in each year since 1992.[120297]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Government do not set targets for the number of work permits to be issued. Assumptions are made about the numbers of work permit applications that are expected to be received in order that Work Permits UK can effectively allocate resources to process applications.

  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many software developers from(a) India, (b) elsewhere in the sub-Indian continent and
  738W
  (c) other Asian countries have been granted (i) fast track visas and (ii) ordinary work permits in each year since 1992.[120298]

  Beverley Hughes
  The numbers of work permits issued to all IT workers from these geographic areas since 2000 (the earliest year for which data on shortage occupations, to which the term 'fast track visas' is assumed to refer, is available) is as follows:

  Shortage occupations

  Non-shortage occupations

  India

  2000

  3,950

  7,519

  2001

  9,175

  7,839

  2002

  7,039

  10,324

  Rest of Indian sub-Continent1

  2000

  114

  103

  2001

  388

  130

  2002

  453

  280

  Other Asian Countries2

  2000

  220

  544

  2001

  499

  727

  2002

  272

  774

  1 Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh.

  2 Nepal, Burma, Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Malaysia, Indonesia, Philippines, Mongolia, China, Bhutan, Taiwan, Japan, North and South Korea.

  Work Permits (UK) is not able to provide distinct figures for software developers.

  Italian Citizens (Internment)
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received on the Government issuing an apology for internment of Italian citizens resident in the UK during World War II.[121413]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I am not aware of any recent representations on this subject.

  Moldovan Women
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Moldovan women have been(a) deported from the UK and (b) repatriated to Moldova in each year since 1997. [R] [120168]

  Beverley Hughes
  Information on the gender or destination of people who were removed from the UK is not available except by examination of individual case-files; this would be at disproportionate cost.

  National Asylum Support Service
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the National Asylum Support Service is funding accommodation at the Coniston hotel, Sittingbourne; and if he will make a statement. [120683]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 20 June 2003]: On 11 December 2002 we entered into contract with Accommodata to use some of the rooms at the Coniston hotel to house asylum seekers. As previously announced, we decided not to use the hotel and are not doing so. The Home Office has invoked the early

  739W
  termination provision of the contract. Until the end of contract, we will continue to meet our financial obligations.

  Passports
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 18 June 2003,Official Report, column 265W, on passports, when the UK Passport Service last undertook such an exercise; and what the results were. [121275]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 23 June 2003]: In the last five years the UK Passport Service (UKPS) has not undertaken any exercise which established the number of current passports which have been issued as second passports.

  Police Basic Command Units
  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the basic command units in the same administrative family as West Somerset Basic Command Unit.[119612]

  Ms Blears
  The present administrative grouping containing West Somerset Basic Command Unit is contained in the table. This grouping will be used in the publication of Crime Statistics for February 2003 as it was for the January 2002 publication. These administrative groupings are currently being revised to reflect the small number of boundary changes that took effect in April 2003, and the updated lists will be published within the next few months.

  Police force

  Basic command unit name

  Avon and Somerset

  Somerset East

  Somerset West

  Cambridgeshire

  Central

  Southern

  Derbyshire

  Buxton (B Division)

  Devon and Cornwall

  Devon and Cornwall area 1

  Devon and Cornwall area 3

  Devon and Cornwall area 4

  Dorset

  Eastern

  Western

  Essex

  Braintree

  Gloucestershire

  Cotswold and Stroud

  Hampshire

  Andover

  Central Hampshire

  Kent

  Weald

  Lincolnshire

  East Lincolnshire

  South Lincolnshire

  Norfolk

  Norfolk Eastern area

  Norfolk Western area

  North Yorkshire

  North Yorks—Eastern

  North Yorks—Western

  Northamptonshire

  Western

  Suffolk

  Suffolk Western

  Sussex

  Weald

  Western

  Thames Valley

  Aylesbury Vale

  Northern Oxfordshire

  Southern Oxfordshire

  West Berkshire

  West Mercia

  Shrewsbury

  Wiltshire

  Chippenham

  Salisbury

  Policing Plan Targets
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many policing plan targets were(a) set and (b) achieved by each police force in England in 2002–03; and if he will make a statement.[120806]

  Ms Blears
  Targets are set by police authorities in their annual policing and best value performance plans. In the financial year 2002–03, police authorities continued working towards targets for the reduction of vehicle crime and domestic burglary. In addition, the Metropolitan Police Authority and the police authorities for Greater Manchester, Merseyside, West Midlands and West Yorkshire set targets for the reduction of robbery. Police authorities may set targets in other areas according to locally determined priorities. In 2002–03, for the purposes of securing best value, police authorities were required to monitor the performance of their forces against 21 indicators. They can choose locally to set targets against these indicators. Police authorities must publish performance against any targets and indicators.

  From April 2003, police authorities must also issue three-year strategy plans (two years in the first instance). These must take into account the National Policing Plan, and must express within them targets for the reduction of domestic burglary and vehicle crime and (in the areas covered by the street crime initiative) for robbery in line with Home Office Public Service Agreements. Information on all targets set locally and performance against them could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Prisons
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each category D prison for which the Prison Service has responsibility for each of the last five years,(a) how many prisoners have absconded (b) how many prisoners who absconded were caught and returned to prisons, (c) how many prisoners at (b) served all or part of the remainder of their sentence in a category C or above prison, (d) how many prisoners have absconded who have yet to be recaptured and (e) how much annual investment has been made in each of the category D prisons designed to deter absconding; and if he will make a statement.[120516]

  Paul Goggins
  Categorisation relates to prisoners not prisons. Category D prisoners are those who it is assessed can be reasonably trusted in open conditions. The information sought is not collated in the form requested and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The available information is set out in the following table. Data are given in respect of prisons that are now open or semi-open. Drake Hall was a female open prison until January 2002 when it became a semi-open prison. Hatfield open young offender institution became Moorland open prison in 2002. Morton Hall was re-roled from male open to female semi-open in 2000. Data on the number recaptured may be understated due to under-reporting.

  No investment has been made in open prisons specifically aimed at deterring absconding, but prisoners allocated to open conditions are selected on the basis of stringent risk assessment procedures. The

  741W
  nature of the regimes in the open estate, with their focus on effective resettlement in the community after release, are designed to encourage the development of personal responsibility on the part of prisoners. Those prisoners who do abscond are usually located in closed, category C, prisons following recapture. In addition to the more

  Prison absconders

  Number of prisoners absconding

  Prison

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  In total over the five years

  Number reported as recaptured by 17 June 2003

  Number not reported as recaptured by 17 June 2003

  Askham Grange

  21

  20

  21

  20

  12

  94

  56

  38

  Blantyre House

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  0

  Drake Hall

  122

  93

  38

  32

  0

  285

  267

  18

  East Sutton Park

  3

  2

  3

  2

  0

  10

  8

  2

  Ford

  38

  68

  57

  54

  91

  308

  257

  51

  Hatfield/Moorland

  68

  36

  35

  50

  56

  244

  228

  16

  Hewell Grange

  16

  32

  20

  15

  23

  106

  76

  30

  Hollesley Bay

  24

  11

  24

  8

  14

  81

  80

  1

  Kirkham

  196

  173

  169

  164

  209

  911

  852

  59

  Kirklevington Grange

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  Latchmere House

  0

  0

  1

  2

  1

  4

  1

  3

  Leyhill

  24

  34

  25

  17

  33

  133

  96

  37

  Morton Hall

  16

  23

  6

  0

  0

  45

  44

  1

  North Sea Camp

  27

  29

  24

  36

  34

  150

  13

  16

  Usk/Prescoed

  13

  19

  14

  5

  8

  59

  51

  8

  Grendon/Spring Hill

  9

  14

  14

  12

  23

  72

  53

  19

  Standford Hill

  4

  35

  29

  37

  81

  184

  132

  52

  Sudbury

  64

  62

  69

  79

  68

  342

  317

  25

  Thorn Cross

  123

  147

  108

  137

  152

  667

  619

  48

  Wealstun

  67

  72

  116

  79

  103

  437

  380

  57

  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prison cells there are; and of these how many are regarded as safe cells. [120724]

  Paul Goggins
  The number of available prison cells changes daily as a result of construction and change in use. At present, the number of cells in use is approximately 45,000. Almost 3,000 safer cells have been installed.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures he has taken to expand the capacity of existing prisons to meet the forecast average population of the prison estate for 2004. [119569]

  Paul Goggins
  Funding from the May 2002 budget was provided for 2,320 places to be delivered over the following 12 months.

  In addition, we have already announced that £60 million will be made available to provide 740 places by March 2004, together with funding for 450 places at Birmingham prison, which are currently scheduled to open by April 2004. A further £138 million has been agreed from the Budget, which will be used to build around 1,000 places over the period 2004–06.

  Provisions in the Criminal Justice Bill will provide sentencers with a range of new disposals to enable them to impose tough and flexible sentences on offenders who do not need to be given custodial sentences. We are also introducing tough new community sentences such as the 'Intensive Control and Change programme' (ICCP) aimed at cutting offending by 18 to 20-year-olds by tackling their offending behaviour and aiding rehabilitation. We have also extended the Home Detention Curfew scheme to increase the maximum period to four and a half months.
  742W
  limited regime and greater restrictions which apply in such prisons, prisoners who abscond are likely to receive a punishment involving added days and the loss of various privileges. Where eligible, such prisoners would also be extremely unlikely to secure early release on home detention curfew licence.

  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many unfilled positions there were in the Prison Service in each month since June 2002; by what percentage the Prison Service is understaffed in each prison in the UK; and what measures his Department is taking to increase the number of prison officers into the Prison Service.[120170]

  Paul Goggins
  The number of unfilled prison officer grade positions in the Prison Service for each month since June 2002 is shown in Table A. The percentage shortfall in each prison in England and Wales within the public sector is contained in Table B. It has not been possible to collate this information for contracted out prisons and I shall write to the hon. Member when the information is available.

  There are a number of measures under way to increase recruitment and retention. The National Staffing Unit successfully increased prison officer recruitment from an average 1,000 a year to 2,096 during 2002–03. In line with all other recruitment, responsibility for officer recruitment has now been devolved to area and establishment level in order that areas of specific need can be addressed more effectively by local advertising and recruitment campaigns. The majority of applicants wish to work in their home area and are not prepared to move to where establishments have vacancies. Recruitment campaigns have been and continue to be run in areas where shortages are identified and provision has been made to train a further 2,200 new officers during the current financial year.

  Shortfalls have occurred at a number of establishments where additional accommodation has been built and recruitment has increased the pressure on

  743W
  training course places. Many establishments which are currently understaffed have recruited staff and are awaiting their availability to start training.

  In addition, local allowances have been introduced to assist in the retention of staff in areas of high turnover.

  Table A

  Staff in post

  Planned posts

  Shortfall

  Percentage under staffed

  June 2002

  22,897.5

  23,785.1

  887.6

  3.88

  July 2002

  22,915

  23,785.1

  870.1

  3.80

  August 2002

  22,924

  23,785.1

  861.1

  3.76

  September 2002

  23,015.5

  24,073.1

  1,057.6

  4.60

  October 2002

  23,109.5

  24,073.1

  963.6

  4.17

  November 2002

  23,088.5

  24,073.1

  984.6

  4.26

  December 2002

  23,090.5

  24,214.6

  1,124.1

  4.87

  January 2003

  23,223.5

  24,214.6

  991.1

  4.27

  February 2003

  23,246.5

  24,214.6

  968.1

  4.16

  March 2003

  23,320.5

  24,310.85

  990.35

  4.25

  April 2003

  23,356.5

  24,310.85

  954.35

  4.09

  May 2003

  23,383.5

  24,310.85

  927.35

  3.97

  Table B

  Staff in post

  Planned posts

  Percentage under staffed

  Highpoint North

  87

  112

  22.32

  Highdown

  243.5

  295

  17.46

  Lancaster Farms

  202.5

  243

  16.67

  Erlestoke

  102

  121.5

  16.05

  Bullingdon

  212.5

  253

  16.01

  Bullwood Hall

  76.5

  90

  15.00

  Downview

  98

  115

  14.78

  Exeter

  173.5

  201

  13.68

  Bristol

  266

  308

  13.64

  Askham Grange

  29.5

  34

  13.24

  Send

  65

  74

  12.16

  Wormwood Scrubs

  278

  316

  12.03

  Haslar

  46

  52

  11.54

  Hindley

  250.5

  282

  11.17

  Dorchester

  80

  90

  11.11

  Feltham

  417.5

  468

  10.79

  Whitemoor

  475

  529

  10.21

  Belmarsh

  490

  543.5

  9.84

  Lancaster

  80.5

  89

  9.55

  Gloucester

  119.5

  132

  9.47

  Holloway

  261

  288

  9.38

  Portland

  156.5

  172.5

  9.28

  Long Lartin

  361

  397

  9.07

  Warren Hill

  137

  150.5

  8.97

  Grendon

  154

  169

  8.88

  Leyhill

  67

  73.5

  8.84

  Drake Hall

  81

  88.5

  8.47

  Brixton

  221

  241

  8.30

  Rochester

  136

  147.5

  7.80

  North Sea Camp

  38.5

  41.75

  7.78

  Eastwood Park

  116.5

  126

  7.54

  Garth

  215

  232.5

  7.53

  Lincoln

  211

  228

  7.46

  Bedford

  139.5

  150

  7.00

  Hewell Grange

  29.5

  31.6

  6.65

  Huntercombe

  159

  170

  6.47

  The Mount

  150

  160

  6.25

  Ford

  61

  65

  6.15

  Littlehey

  144

  153

  5.88

  CookhamWood

  56.5

  60

  5.83

  Thorn Cross

  105

  111.5

  5.83

  Acklington

  218.5

  232

  5.82

  Onley

  223.5

  237

  5.70

  Stafford

  164.5

  174

  5.46

  Frankland

  471.5

  498.5

  5.42

  Werrington

  79.5

  84

  5.36

  Albany

  142

  150

  5.33

  Woodhill

  434

  457

  5.03

  Camp Hill

  143.5

  151

  4.97

  Wellingborough

  135

  142

  4.93

  Morton Hall

  107.5

  113

  4.87

  Preston

  234.5

  246

  4.67

  Wakefield

  358

  375

  4.53

  744W

  Table B

  Staff in post

  Planned posts

  Percentage under staffed

  Northallerton

  65

  68

  4.41

  Gartree

  144.5

  151

  4.30

  Deerbolt

  176

  183

  3.83

  Liverpool

  495.5

  515

  3.79

  Durham

  408.5

  424

  3.66

  New Hall

  186

  193

  3.63

  Dover

  109

  113

  3.54

  Lindholme

  192

  199

  3.52

  Blundeston

  152.5

  158

  3.48

  Parkhurst

  190

  196

  3.06

  Guys Marsh

  143.5

  148

  3.04

  Brockhill

  99

  102

  2.94

  Low Newton

  139

  143

  2.80

  Blantyre House

  35

  36

  2.78

  Brinsford

  229

  235.5

  2.76

  Wayland

  152

  156

  2.56

  Wymott

  208

  213

  2.35

  Stocken

  147.5

  151

  2.32

  Aylesbury

  170.5

  174.5

  2.29

  Kirklevington

  44

  45

  2.22

  Pentonville

  384

  392.5

  2.17

  Nottingham

  181

  185

  2.16

  Wetherby

  161.5

  165

  2.12

  Lewes

  173.5

  177

  1.98

  Castington

  210

  214

  1.87

  Weare

  109.5

  111.5

  1.79

  Ranby

  225

  229

  1.75

  Wandsworth

  367

  373.5

  1.74

  Cardiff

  235

  239

  1.6

  Glen Parva

  250

  254

  1.57

  Chelmsford

  191.5

  194

  1.29

  Wealstun

  154

  156

  1.28

  Hollesley Bay

  41.5

  42

  1.19

  Usk/Prescoed

  87

  88

  1.14

  Standford Hill

  89

  90

  1.11

  Full Sutton

  478.5

  483.5

  1.03

  Maidstone

  192

  194

  1.03

  Hull

  339.5

  343

  1.02

  Stoke Heath

  232

  234

  0.85

  Haverigg

  127.5

  128.5

  0.78

  Sudbury

  66.5

  67

  0.75

  Featherstone

  142

  143

  0.70

  Holme House

  307

  308.5

  0.49

  Buckley Hall

  109.5

  110

  0.45

  Channings Wood

  161.5

  162

  0.31

  Winchester

  219

  198.5

  0.00

  Whatton

  93

  92

  0.00

  The Verne

  108

  105.5

  0.00

  Swinfen Hall

  119

  119

  0.00

  Swansea

  128

  128

  0.00

  Swaleside

  243.5

  238

  0.00

  Styal

  171

  169

  0.00

  Shrewsbury

  104.5

  102

  0.00

  Shepton Mallet

  65

  65

  0.00

  Risley

  306.5

  301

  0.00

  Reading

  115.5

  114.5

  0.00

  Norwich

  230

  229

  0.00

  Moorland

  335.5

  331

  0.00

  Manchester

  421

  416

  0.00

  Leicester

  131

  122

  0.00

  Leeds

  417.5

  414.5

  0.00

  Latchmere House

  39

  39

  0.00

  Kirkham

  87

  85

  0.00

  Kingston

  77

  73

  0.00

  Highpoint South

  199

  168

  0.00

  Foston Hall

  87

  83.5

  0.00

  Everthorpe

  121

  121

  0.00

  Elmley

  255

  242

  0.00

  East Sutton Park

  24.5

  22.5

  0.00

  Dartmoor

  178.5

  175

  0.00

  Coldingley

  99

  98

  0.00

  Canterbury

  116.5

  110

  0.00

  Blakenhurst

  177

  166

  0.00

  Birmingham

  381

  319

  0.00

  Ashwell

  114.5

  111.5

  0.00

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what assessment he has made
  745W
  of the adequacy of arrangements to prevent prisoners receiving medication attempting to take an overdose; [119797]

  (2) what guidance is given to prisons about the staffing of prison hospital wings by non hospital wing staff; [119799]

  (3) what assessment he has made of the adequacy of medical training given to prison hospital staff. [119800]

  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 17 June 2003]: We intend to publish the report of a review of pharmacy services for prisoners very shortly. The national occupational standards for custodial health care set out the competencies required for the administration of medication, including in circumstances where there is a risk of self-harm.

  The "Toolkit for Health Care Needs Assessment in Prisons" (University of Birmingham February 2000) provided guidance for prisons and the NHS on the planning requirements for health care services for prisoners. The organisation and staffing of health care centres are matters to be determined by prison governors, in consultation with their local NHS partners. The level and mix of staff at different times of the day are decided locally, subject to the same considerations as for other areas of the prison.

  Within the context of the prison health reforms, specific studies were carried out on the training and other developmental needs of prison doctors, nurses and

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Working days lost

  Cases

  Working days lost

  Cases

  Working days lost

  Cases

  Working days lost

  Cases

  Acklington

  901

  23

  319

  7

  431

  10

  544

  13

  Albany

  399

  9

  116

  4

  128

  5

  119

  4

  Ashwell

  98

  5

  72

  5

  144

  2

  286

  7

  Askham Grange

  209

  8

  269

  4

  266

  3

  448

  4

  Aylesbury

  769

  38

  1,314

  34

  839

  18

  873

  19

  Bedford

  528

  26

  614

  30

  717

  20

  1,037

  18

  Belmarsh

  1,448

  34

  2,344

  56

  3,161

  105

  3,180

  79

  Birmingham

  1,338

  30

  2,426

  53

  1,105

  34

  1,086

  29

  Blakenhurst

  —

  —

  —

  —

  291

  11

  1,194

  25

  Blantyre House

  129

  1

  27

  1

  0

  0

  11

  1

  Blundeston

  516

  18

  604

  17

  525

  12

  453

  16

  Brinsford

  649

  21

  539

  20

  516

  12

  694

  16

  Bristol

  1,612

  45

  2,025

  41

  845

  25

  973

  25

  Brixton

  1,064

  27

  3,051

  56

  2,251

  48

  1,635

  40

  Brockhill

  513

  11

  625

  12

  695

  15

  839

  23

  Buckley Hall

  81

  6

  61

  6

  538

  11

  469

  11

  Bullingdon

  649

  24

  1,414

  41

  700

  37

  1,446

  70

  Bullwood Hall

  334

  8

  249

  10

  220

  10

  46

  4

  Camp Hill

  439

  12

  96

  7

  44

  4

  115

  9

  Canterbury

  682

  20

  689

  20

  357

  15

  686

  13

  Cardiff

  763

  21

  1,076

  26

  1,328

  31

  819

  22

  Castington

  1,956

  28

  1,743

  30

  2,192

  36

  1,608

  19

  Channings Wood

  46

  4

  54

  6

  664

  10

  429

  12

  Chelmsford

  1,356

  28

  434

  18

  693

  13

  514

  13

  Coldingley

  153

  5

  269

  2

  394

  13

  224

  9

  Cookham Wood

  108

  2

  60

  3

  1

  2

  109

  7

  Dartmoor

  684

  18

  879

  31

  1,073

  17

  1,919

  36

  Deerbolt

  465

  12

  453

  10

  280

  6

  617

  18

  Dorchester

  708

  5

  360

  5

  135

  3

  213

  2

  Dover

  317

  8

  477

  9

  471

  7

  312

  4

  Downview

  576

  14

  386

  11

  414

  8

  452

  11

  Drake Hall

  297

  11

  321

  6

  504

  15

  282

  8

  Durham

  1,132

  27

  1,011

  34

  2,056

  36

  2,010

  45

  East Sutton Park

  15

  2

  0

  0

  19

  1

  101

  4

  Eastwood Park

  355

  12

  264

  15

  1,088

  20

  828

  17

  Elmley

  620

  16

  750

  23

  639

  27

  777

  41

  746W
  health care officers. The recommendations in these reports, which are available at: www.doh.gov.uk/prisonhealth/ publications, have been accepted and are in the process of being implemented.

  A report into the circumstances surrounding the act of self-harm by a prisoner on 9 June 2003 at Woodhill prison was received by the Prison Service on 13 June. This was forwarded to Ministers on 17 June 2003, along with the Prison Service's response. I made a written ministerial statement on 19 June 2003, Official Report, column 13WS about the findings of the inquiry.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) sick days were taken and (b) prison officers were on sick leave owing to mental health problems in each prison in each year since 1997. [120104]

  Paul Goggins
  Sickness absence is recorded in terms of the reason for absence. The following table provides the number of working days lost and cases recorded among officer grade staff for psychological conditions in each year since April 1999. Reliable sickness absence information is not available prior to 1999.

  Data relates to prison officer, senior officer and principal officer grades. Over the period, the number of officers in post has risen from 23,875 at 31 March 1999 to 24,825 at 31 March 2003. Information on contracted out prisons is not available as it is commercial in confidence.
  747W

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Working days lost

  Cases

  Working days lost

  Cases

  Working days lost

  Cases

  Working days lost

  Cases

  Erlestoke

  275

  7

  289

  12

  374

  6

  533

  8

  Everthorpe

  27

  3

  383

  6

  11

  2

  132

  5

  Exeter

  677

  20

  646

  15

  999

  24

  1,027

  30

  Featherstone

  263

  14

  162

  5

  137

  5

  75

  7

  Feltham

  1,623

  39

  1,804

  38

  2,129

  44

  1,131

  60

  Ford

  1

  1

  50

  3

  32

  3

  182

  6

  Foston Hall

  206

  5

  341

  10

  306

  12

  279

  9

  Frankland

  471

  15

  904

  25

  1,185

  28

  1,011

  21

  Full Sutton

  1,256

  40

  1,198

  38

  2,304

  49

  2,028

  36

  Garth

  813

  19

  1,430

  21

  822

  12

  989

  16

  Gartree

  799

  16

  699

  8

  761

  8

  457

  10

  Glen Parva

  692

  20

  1,301

  22

  462

  15

  1,535

  30

  Gloucester

  559

  7

  664

  12

  856

  15

  982

  23

  Grendon

  321

  6

  784

  21

  1,198

  19

  1,438

  30

  Guys Marsh

  399

  7

  330

  8

  461

  10

  1,070

  15

  Haslar

  117

  9

  65

  2

  299

  3

  294

  4

  Haverigg

  513

  8

  409

  12

  793

  27

  571

  13

  Hewell Grange

  0

  0

  2

  1

  135

  2

  124

  2

  Highdown

  894

  22

  1,152

  30

  1,234

  29

  1,409

  25

  Highpoint

  402

  18

  722

  16

  218

  7

  321

  9

  Highpoint North

  —

  —

  —

  —

  352

  9

  406

  12

  Hindley

  71

  7

  380

  12

  417

  15

  1,534

  26

  Hollesley Bay

  818

  9

  540

  13

  701

  16

  391

  5

  Holloway

  1,746

  42

  2,386

  48

  2,060

  51

  2,439

  57

  Holme House

  904

  19

  954

  22

  789

  24

  1,510

  30

  Hull

  194

  10

  567

  19

  578

  13

  950

  22

  Huntercombe

  453

  8

  1,033

  23

  1,189

  30

  569

  32

  Kingston

  144

  9

  83

  7

  125

  4

  218

  6

  Kirkham

  155

  9

  189

  8

  108

  2

  154

  3

  Kirklevington

  64

  2

  0

  0

  136

  3

  61

  2

  Lancaster

  25

  2

  229

  14

  229

  5

  460

  9

  Lancaster Farms

  851

  20

  978

  12

  546

  15

  415

  13

  Latchmere House

  0

  0

  11

  1

  89

  5

  50

  7

  Leeds

  1,339

  57

  1,110

  38

  1,913

  43

  1,904

  45

  Leicester

  131

  10

  603

  14

  657

  11

  1,064

  16

  Lewes

  927

  22

  854

  20

  798

  21

  1,099

  29

  Leyhill

  269

  3

  166

  6

  463

  9

  221

  5

  Lincoln

  311

  6

  413

  10

  263

  8

  2,166

  50

  Lindholme

  420

  6

  604

  17

  664

  15

  1,202

  23

  Littlehey

  494

  19

  1,086

  14

  1,466

  21

  767

  15

  Liverpool

  826

  20

  2,689

  56

  2,550

  42

  2,507

  46

  Long Lartin

  811

  23

  1,241

  23

  553

  17

  365

  18

  Low Newton

  71

  3

  135

  8

  288

  9

  243

  10

  Maidstone

  729

  17

  790

  18

  927

  25

  1,690

  26

  Manchester

  2,529

  44

  2,509

  49

  3,019

  63

  3,591

  52

  Moorland

  409

  14

  821

  29

  998

  16

  1,173

  27

  Morton Hall

  203

  4

  8

  1

  136

  9

  399

  13

  New Hall

  334

  11

  93

  6

  451

  12

  882

  20

  North Sea Camp

  1

  1

  190

  5

  223

  12

  144

  15

  Northallerton

  284

  8

  172

  5

  82

  4

  54

  3

  Norwich

  486

  9

  631

  19

  593

  19

  1,171

  29

  Nottingham

  968

  23

  420

  10

  356

  16

  724

  21

  Onley

  634

  21

  896

  29

  1,544

  32

  1,946

  35

  Parkhurst

  585

  12

  565

  14

  1,568

  26

  1,225

  19

  Pentonville

  1,115

  38

  1,012

  40

  1,799

  56

  1,744

  37

  Portland

  731

  28

  1,183

  29

  1,281

  21

  528

  7

  Preston

  1,095

  25

  1,217

  22

  1,044

  18

  1,057

  24

  Ranby

  341

  7

  55

  6

  349

  14

  781

  21

  Reading

  127

  2

  874

  18

  778

  14

  571

  17

  Risley

  1,714

  20

  1,032

  20

  1,692

  28

  3,938

  55

  Rochester

  469

  8

  417

  18

  793

  13

  2,091

  28

  Send

  46

  6

  222

  16

  828

  44

  127

  8

  Shepton Mallet

  158

  5

  230

  6

  24

  6

  148

  4

  Shrewsbury

  280

  8

  348

  5

  967

  8

  719

  8

  Stafford

  1,186

  25

  805

  31

  1,654

  28

  1,207

  25

  Standford Hill

  696

  11

  137

  7

  30

  1

  381

  8

  Stocken

  269

  7

  251

  9

  341

  5

  305

  7

  Stoke Heath

  999

  14

  679

  12

  664

  26

  1,332

  23

  Styal

  943

  18

  630

  15

  699

  9

  540

  18

  Sudbury

  82

  6

  266

  3

  314

  10

  221

  9

  Swaleside

  239

  13

  786

  18

  1,592

  22

  1,184

  21

  748W 749W

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Working days lost

  Cases

  Working days lost

  Cases

  Working days lost

  Cases

  Working days lost

  Cases

  Swansea

  110

  4

  544

  14

  666

  9

  547

  6

  Swinfen Hall

  75

  4

  11

  1

  115

  6

  274

  7

  The Mount

  299

  10

  534

  16

  174

  8

  311

  15

  The Verne

  64

  4

  66

  5

  169

  10

  49

  4

  Thorn Cross

  162

  5

  217

  10

  497

  14

  689

  15

  Usk/Prescoed

  115

  1

  9

  3

  68

  5

  500

  10

  Wakefield

  928

  21

  1,002

  25

  1,950

  40

  2,023

  43

  Wandsworth

  538

  18

  982

  33

  1,716

  26

  2,434

  51

  Warren Hill

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  579

  9

  Wayland

  166

  5

  109

  8

  192

  5

  349

  8

  Wealstun

  579

  10

  309

  8

  201

  8

  180

  7

  Weare

  744

  21

  630

  24

  338

  12

  356

  10

  Wellingborough

  427

  12

  569

  16

  490

  11

  814

  24

  Werrington

  446

  9

  590

  11

  191

  10

  234

  7

  Wetherby

  341

  9

  477

  21

  1,149

  17

  749

  11

  Whatton

  129

  5

  66

  3

  21

  2

  138

  4

  Whitemoor

  1,037

  33

  2,385

  39

  3,044

  56

  1,776

  46

  Winchester

  2,010

  40

  1,307

  29

  1,299

  45

  1,296

  41

  Woodhill

  1,100

  34

  1,502

  38

  2,868

  58

  3,441

  70

  Wormwood Scrubs

  3,579

  69

  2,412

  54

  2,354

  74

  2,525

  53

  Wymott

  394

  8

  639

  18

  1,030

  27

  747

  20

  HQ

  501

  6

  539

  9

  977

  10

  713

  8

  Total

  74,637

  1,894

  87,117

  2,188

  101,629

  2,360

  114,228

  2,583

  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many instances of(a) suicide, (b) self-harm and (c) violence against staff or inmates have occurred at HMP Styal in each month since January. [120166]

  Paul Goggins
  The following tables give the information requested.

  Month (2003)

  Number of self- inflicted deaths

  Number of instances of self-harm

  January

  1

  25

  February

  0

  42

  March

  0

  39

  April

  1

  30

  May

  0

  Not available

  June1

  1

  Not available

  Total

  3

  136

  1 up to 17 June 2003

  Month (2003)

  Number of assaults against staff

  Number of assaults against prisoners

  January

  4

  1

  February

  3

  0

  March

  5

  0

  April

  4

  4

  May

  4

  0

  June1

  Not available

  Not available

  Total

  20

  5

  1 up to 17 June 2003

  Emerging findings from a group examining recent deaths in custody at Styal have helped to bring about a number of immediate changes. These include the maximisation of prisoners' access to work, education and time out of cell, as well as to various peer support schemes and mental health professionals; improvements to Styal's induction programme; and an improved package of training and support for staff in first-aid and management of suicidal women.
  750W
  In the longer term, 200,000 of funding has been secured to dedicate part of Styal's Waite wing to a proposed high-risk activity team, which will include staff specially trained in risk identification and management. NHS funding has been secured to provide a methadone maintenance programme for women dependent on opiates (subject to staff recruitment), a particular necessity in the female estate where a high percentage of receptions are poly-drug users.

  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he is taking to(a) reduce overcrowding in prisons, (b) reduce the number of security incidents in prisons reported to the Home Office each week and (c) improve the vetting procedures for employing prison officers into the Prison Service.[120167]

  Paul Goggins
  Funding has been provided for 2,820 extra prison places to be built at existing prisons. In addition, two new prisons will be opened at Ashford and Peterborough. Together with building programmes in progress, these will increase the total useable capacity of the Prison Service estate from 74,138 (as at 19 June 2003) to around 78,700 by 2006.

  Provisions in the Criminal Justice Bill will provide sentencers with a range of new disposals to enable them to impose tough and flexible sentences on offenders who do not need to be given custodial sentences. We are also introducing tough new community sentences such as the 'Intensive Control and Change programme' aimed at cutting offending by 18 to 20-year-olds by tackling their offending behaviour and aiding rehabilitation. We have also extended the Home Detention Curfew scheme to increase the maximum period to four and a half months. Whatever the population pressures, the Government are uncompromising in its response to serious and dangerous offenders: where there is a need to protect the public, they will be held in a secure environment.
  751W
  Prisons are required to report security incidents to Prison Service headquarters. The number of reported incidents in prisons has increased over recent years. In part this is due to improved reporting, although both the number and rate of incidents has increased. Incident data is monitored and analysed so that policy and procedures can be reviewed in order to minimise future incidents and disseminate best practice. Key performance indicators on escapes, assaults and drug testing focus managers and staff on preventing these types of security incidents and self inflicted deaths.

  Major initiatives aimed at minimising security incidents include a review of the security manual, a programme of perimeter security improvements in selected prisons and a security awareness programme. Improved analysis and research into the pattern and causes of incidents, including those of concerted indiscipline and hostage taking, is under way.

  The Safer Custody Group is working on a violence reduction strategy that will focus on prevention. This mirrors similar approaches taken in the community and in other organisations. Work is already under way to increase the problem-solving capacity of staff and prisoners, improve risk management, reduce violent offending and prevent victimisation.

  The Prison Service Drug Strategy includes a co-ordinated package of measures to reduce both the supply of—and demand for—drugs in prison. These include improving CCTV in visits areas, providing additional drug detection dogs, introducing comprehensive measures to deal with visitors who attempt to smuggle drugs, research into the most effective electronic drug-detection equipment, better use of fixed and low-level furniture, and improving drugs awareness training for staff. In February 2003, the Prison Service announced the Supply Reduction Project (SRP)—a co-ordinated programme that aims to support establishments reduce still further the supply of drugs in prisons.

  In addition to these centrally led initiatives, establishments have developed local programmes tailored to their particular circumstances. These include violence reduction and anti-bullying programmes. Minimising the number of security incidents is essential to the safe custody of prisoners and to the protection of prisoners and staff. However, the number of incidents will increase as population increases and it should be recognised that the majority of incidents other than escapes, assaults and deaths are quickly and safely resolved by Prison Service staff through the use of good contingency planning and incident resolution procedures.

  A formal investigation into the circumstances of the employment of a journalist at Woodhill is scheduled to report by 27 June 2003. The terms of reference include a requirement to ascertain what took place and recommend changes to recruitment and pre-appointment vetting procedures. It would not be appropriate to pre-empt the findings of the report. The Prison Service will consider urgently what action to take in the light of the recommendations.

  Public Service Agreements
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many and what proportion of 752W
  the public service agreements of his Department set out in the document, "Public Services for the Future 1998", have been met; and if he will make a statement.[120804]

  Mr. Blunkett
  Success in meeting the targets set during the Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) was summarised in the chart on pages 12 to 19 of the Home Office "Targets Delivery Report" (Cm 5754), published in February 2003. More detailed information about performance is provided in the Home Office Annual Reports, covering the period 1999–2000 to 2001–02.

  Responsibility for some activities, which were the subject of Home Office targets in the CSR, have transferred to other Government Departments in subsequent changes in the machinery of Government; these targets are identified in the "Targets Delivery Report".

  Radical Islamic Groups (Funding)
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what reports he has received about the funding of international radical Islamic groups through United Kingdom banks by(a) the International Islamic Relief Organisation, (b) al-Haramain and (c) the World Assembly of Muslim Youth. [119672] E.R

  Mr. Blunkett
  I have not received any reports through United Kingdom banks concerning the funding of the International Islamic Relief Organisation, al-Haramain or the World Assembly of Muslim Youth.

  Regulations/Statutory Instruments
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the regulations and statutory instruments introduced in each of the last three years in the categories(a) crime and policing, (b) drugs, (c) community and race relations,(d) criminal justice system and victims of crime,
  (e) prisons and probation services, (f) terrorism and (g) other responsibilities of his Department, indicating those which have a sunset clause. [119581]

  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 16 June 2003]: It is not possible to provide the detailed information requested otherwise than at disproportionate cost. However, the total numbers of statutory instruments (including regulations) made by Home Office Ministers during 2000 was 118; during 2001 was 115 and during 2002 was 114.

  The following instruments included sunset clauses:
  The Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (Part V Exemption: Eligible Voluntary Bodies and Relevant Employers) Order 2001 (S.I. 2001/1393);
  The Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (Part V Exemption: Relevant Employers) Order 2002 (S.I. 2002/9);
  The Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (Part V Exemption: Relevant Employers) Order 2002 (S.I. 2002/3025);
  The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Codes of Practice) (Modification) Order 2001 (S.I. 2001/2254);
  The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (Codes of Practice) (Temporary Modifications to Code D) Order 2002 (S.I. 2002/ 615);
  The Charities (Exception from Registration) (Amendment) Regulations 2002.

  Regulatory Bodies
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the(a) number of staff employed by and (b) budget of each regulatory body for which his Department is responsible in each year since 1997. [117786]

  Mr. Blunkett
  The information is to be found in the annual publication "Public Bodies" for the respective years. Copies are available in the Library.

  Stop and Search
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list(a) the time period and (b) the area covered for all authorisations for stop and search granted under section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000 since 1 January.[119936]

  Mr. Blunkett
  It is a longstanding policy of this and previous administrations not to comment on operational counter-terrorist measures. However, I can confirm that Section 44 authorisations have been approved for periods of up to 28 days, covering both specifically designated zones, and entire force areas. The total number of stops and searches by force area are provided in the Home Office Statistical Bulletin—Arrests for Notifiable Offences and the Operation of Certain Police Powers under PACE.

  Tuberculosis
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many persons having been granted(a) residence and (b) indefinite leave to remain on the basis of suffering from (i) TB, (ii) HIV Aids and (iii) Hepatitis B in each of the last five years; and how many persons are dependent on them.[120409]

  Beverley Hughes
  I regret that the information requested is not available.

  Information on the number of people granted leave to remain, either temporary or permanent, in the UK on the basis from suffering from any of the conditions listed is not collated centrally and so could not be obtained without disproportionate cost.

  Any application to stay in the UK on compassionate grounds because an applicant has a serious medical condition is given careful consideration on its individual merits. Those who are granted leave are normally given discretionary leave to remain for a limited period rather than indefinite leave, unless they qualify for settlement on some other basis, such as long residence.

  Youth Court Targets
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress the Government has made in meeting its target to halve the time between arrest and sentence in the youth courts, compared with 1997; and what the average time was between(a) arrest and sentence, (b) arrest and first appearance in court and (c) conviction and sentence in each of the last three years. [120303]

  Paul Goggins
  In 1997 the Government pledged to halve the time from arrest to sentence for persistent young offenders from 142 days to 71 days. In 2000 it 754W
  averaged 93 days, in 2001 76 days and in 2002 68 days. The Pledge has now been met for seven consecutive quarters.

  We do not break down the Pledge performance data into arrest to first appearance, and conviction to sentence, but the Department for Constitutional Affairs does have average figures for young defendants, persistent or otherwise, whose cases are completed in the magistrates courts. These are, in days:

  Arrest to first listing

  Verdict to sentence

  Arrest to sentence

  1997

  Not available

  Not available

  Not available

  2000

  18

  14

  64

  2001

  17

  11

  58

  2002

  17

  7

  55

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Age Positive Campaign
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what plans he has to continue funding the Age Positive Campaign; and what assessment he has made of its budget requirements for each of the next three years; [120954]

  (2) how many organisations signed up to be age positive champions in each of the last 12 months. [121016]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Age Positive Campaign has funding for three years from April 2003. Budget requirements for future years will be considered as part of the 2004 spending review.

  In the last 12 months 25 employers have voluntarily sought endorsement and received approval as age positive champions. This figure cannot be broken down on a month by month basis.

  Amesbury Jobcentre
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many clients have been(a) advised and (b) placed by the Amesbury jobcentre in each of the past 12 months.[116056]

  Mr. Browne
  The administration of Jobcentre Plus is a matter for the chief executive of Jobcentre Plus, David Anderson. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from David Anderson to Robert Key, dated 19 June 2003:
  As Jobcentre Plus is an Executive Agency, the Secretary of State has asked me to reply direct to your question about how many clients have been advised and placed by the Amesbury Jobcentre in each of the past 12 months. This is something that falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of the Agency.
  The information requested on the number of people advised by Amesbury Jobcentre is not available. Records are not kept of the number of people given employment advice. Although statistics are kept for the number of people registered as unemployed with Amesbury Jobcentre we offer advice to a wide range of people including lone parents, people claiming incapacity benefits and people already in employment. Therefore the number of registered unemployed people using the Jobcentre is not a reliable guide for the total number of these people benefiting from our services.
  755W
  The number of people placed into work by the Amesbury Jobcentre is shown in table:

  Job placements through Amesburty jobcentre

  Year/month

  Placements

  2002

  May

  34

  June

  36

  July

  20

  August

  50

  September

  39

  October

  40

  November

  50

  December

  40

  2003

  January

  17

  Februay

  34

  March

  29

  April

  29

  Total

  418

  Source:

  Jobcentre Plus Business Information System (BIS)

  I hope this is helpful.

  Council Tax Benefit
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of likely changes in claims for council tax benefit during 2003–04 in(a) England and (b) Eastbourne. [118130]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We forecast that the average number of council tax benefit recipients in England during 2003–04 will be 4,179,000. This compares with an estimated 4,018,000 in 2002–03. The estimated average number of recipients in Eastbourne during 2002–03 was 7,410. Forecasts are not available by local authority.

  Notes:

  1. Figures underlie the Chancellor's Budget forecasts of expenditure.

  2. The figure for 2002–03 is an estimated outturn (based on part year outturn figures, estimated for the most recent quarter).

  3. Figures for England are rounded to the nearest thousand. The figure for Eastbourne is rounded to the nearest 10.

  Source:

  Department for Work and Pensions, Information and Analysis Directorate, Benefit Forecasting and Model Development.

  Housing Benefit Fraud
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway) of 9 June 2000,Official Report, columns 702–3W, on housing benefit fraud, if he will list the local authorities in Scotland which have signed up for the Verification Framework. [119730]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The following 25 local authorities in Scotland, out of a total of 32, have signed up for the Verification Framework and are compliant in one or more of the three modules:

  Aberdeenshire

  Angus

  Argyll and Bute

  Clackmannanshire

  Dumfries and Galloway

  756W

  East Dunbartonshire

  East Lothian

  East Renfrewshire

  Falkirk

  Fife

  Highland

  Inverclyde

  Midlothian

  Moray

  North Lanarkshire

  Orkney

  Perthshire and Kinross

  Scottish Borders

  Shetland

  South Ayrshire

  South Lanarkshire

  Stirling

  West Dunbartonshire

  West Lothian

  Comhairle Nan Eilean Siar (Western Isles)

  We are encouraging the remaining local authorities to become compliant with the Verification Framework.

  Identity Fraud
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many prosecutions have resulted from National Identity Fraud Unit investigations in each year since it was established.[116729]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is in the table.

  Prosecutions resulting from investigations by the National Identity Fraud Unit

  Number of prosecutions

  1998

  79

  1999

  191

  2000

  223

  2001

  92

  2002

  103

  2003 to date

  70

  Total

  758

  Pensions
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to the answer of 8 May 2003,Official Report, column 815W, when the research will be published.[119213]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Government are considering the options for publication of the research it has commissioned into the likely market impacts of a charge cap on retail investment products.

  Poverty
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many area-based poverty initiatives are administered by his Department; and if he will list them.[119485]
  757W
  Maria Eagle
  The Government believe that helping more people into work is the best way to reduce poverty and guarantee a better standard of living for everyone in our society.

  The Department for Work and Pensions has launched a wide range of labour market initiatives and continues to improve the help provided by piloting new approaches in specific areas. These initiatives and pilots for new ways of working, such as StepUp and Employment Zones, build on the success of the New Deal in helping the long-term unemployed back into work.

  Two of these initiatives are specifically area-based—Action Teams for Jobs and Ethnic Minority Outreach. The objective for both these initiatives is to help people from disadvantaged communities to find work.

  Private Pension Schemes
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the average overall percent age cost of administration is in private pension schemes run by life companies; and what plans he has to require the full extent of this cost to be more transparent to existing and future pension plan holders.[119598]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Information on the average cost of administration of life company private pension schemes is not collected by the Government. The Government's requirements on the transparency of fund administration costs to individual policyholders relates to stakeholder pensions and are as follows.

  There is a maximum annual charge of one per cent. of the value of the member's fund to cover all the costs associated with membership of the scheme. No payments in addition to the one per cent. charge may be made from the member's fund other than a payment; for the purchase or provision of an annuity for the member in accordance with the scheme, or for the making of payments of income (otherwise than by way of an annuity) to a member under arrangements made in accordance with the scheme (income drawdown facilities); for the discharge of the trustee' or managers' liability concerning a pension credit under a pension sharing arrangement; for any stamp duty or other charges incurred by the trustees or manager directly in the sale or purchase of securities or property held for the purposes of the scheme, by the amount of such of those charges as are attributable to the member's rights; made in compliance with a court order to return excessive pension contributions made by a member.

  Standard Local Housing Allowance
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to introduce a cash limit on any gap between the actual rent paid by the claimant plus eligible housing benefit service charges and the proposed standard local housing allowance.[118493]
  758W
  Malcolm Wicks
  We have no plans to introduce a cash limit on any gap between the actual rents paid by tenants (plus eligible housing benefit service charges) and the standard local housing allowance.

  The SLHA will promote choice for tenants, allowing them to trade between the quality and price of their accommodation. We think it is fair that if someone chooses accommodation with rent lower than the standard allowance, they should be entitled to keep any extra money.

  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the potential impact upon the social mix of housing areas of the introduction of the standard local housing allowance(a) generally and (b) in areas of high social deprivation. [118494]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The transparency of the standard local housing allowance should enable tenants to make more informed decisions about where they live. While we cannot predict what impact this will have on the social mix of housing areas, we expect the new scheme to encourage more movement in the private rented sector as tenants decide whether to spend more on rent, or whether to increase their after-housing-costs income by renting less expensive accommodation.

  No one will lose out as a result of the new scheme. In addition, we expect that the simplicity of the new scheme will ease the transition into work. Both of these factors are expected to have a positive impact on reducing poverty and social deprivation.

  We will be evaluating the pathfinder phase very carefully to ensure that any unusual effects on the housing market are identified.

  Tax Credits
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people he estimates will lose(a) passported benefits, (b) income support and (c) council tax benefits as a result of the introduction of tax credits.[120496]

  Malcolm Wicks
  [holding answer 20 June 2003]: There are a wide range of passported benefits and it is not possible to say how many people may lose entitlement as a result of new tax credits. However where free school meals and welfare foods were previously only available to families on income support and income-based jobseeker's allowance, eligibility has been extended to low income families who receive child tax credit (but not working tax credit). Entitlement to sure start maternity grants and funeral payments has also been extended to include families who receive more than the family element of child tax credit, or a disability or severe disability element of working tax credit. Families on low incomes will remain entitled to milk tokens and help with health costs.

  We estimate that around 70,000 families will move off income support or income-based jobseeker's allowance and then receive a higher income as a result of the increased generosity of new tax credits. These families

  759W
  can receive tax credits information and help from their local Jobcentre Plus office.

  The introduction of child tax credit has caused no changes to the rules for claiming council tax benefit. As before, it is adjusted to take into account tax credit income, being withdrawn steadily, at a rate of 20p in the pound, to ensure families always benefit from any increase in their income (whether from the new tax credits or any other source). Families who move off income support and income-based jobseeker's allowance need to make a standard claim to council tax benefit and they can be helped to do this by staff at their local Jobcentre Plus office.

  Universal Bank
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when the(a) universal bank and (b) development funding for credit unions will be in place. [120595]

  Malcolm Wicks
  [holding answer 23 June 2003]: Universal banking at post offices was introduced, as planned, on 1 April 2003.

  The development funding for credit unions is a matter for my right. hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Government Priorities
  The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Paul Murphy)
  I welcome the opportunity to say something about how I see the priorities of Government in Northern Ireland over the coming months. I have today placed in the Libraries of the House a document setting out our approach in greater detail.

  Insolvency Service
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Ian Pearson)
  Today I have placed in the Library of the House copies of the Insolvency Service Annual Report and Account for year ending 31 March 2002. This is in accordance with Articles 372 and 358(4) of the Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 1989.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Crawley Borough Council
  The Minister for Pensions (Malcolm Wicks)
  On behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate (BFI) inspection report on Crawley Borough Council was published today and copies of the report have been placed in the Library.

  In its response to the Housing Green Paper of November 2000, the Department for Work and Pensions developed a performance framework for housing benefits. The Performance Standards for housing benefits allow local authorities to make a comprehensive self-assessment of whether they deliver benefit effectively and securely. They are the Standards that the Department for Work and Pensions expects local authorities to aspire to and achieve in time.

  The BFI inspected Crawley Borough Council against the Performance Standards. The report finds that the council is not at Standard for any of the seven functional areas of the Performance Standards—strategic management, customer services, processing of claims, working with landlords, internal security, counter-fraud, and overpayments.

  However, the council had strengths in all the seven functional areas and its overall level of performance for administering benefits and counter-fraud activities was fair. Claimants received a good service in terms of caller facilities and provisions for those with special needs. Evidence gathering to support a claim was generally thorough but the council was failing to adequately protect the benefits system due to processing delays. While improvement had been made, performance was
  34WS
  still significantly below the clearance times required by the Standards. Overpayments were occurring because notified changes of circumstances were not being dealt with promptly.

  The report finds that the council's Counter-fraud team was operating effectively. The number of administrative penalties and prosecutions was increasing year on year. Recovery of overpayments was effective but management information on the amount of benefits debt was generally lacking.

  BFI noted a clear commitment to improve overall performance. A council wide change programme was having a positive effect on the benefit service. A longstanding backlog of work had been significantly reduced, additional staff resources had been recruited and a major upgrade to the benefits IT system had been successfully implemented. All were improving the benefit service's capacity to deal with work intake and more effectively manage its benefits workload.

  In 2002–03, Crawley Borough Council administered some £20.5 million in housing benefits, about 35 per cent. of its total gross revenue expenditure. The report makes recommendations to help the council address weaknesses and to further improve the administration of Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit, as well as counter-fraud activities.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is now considering the report and will be asking the council for its proposals in response to the findings and recommendations of the BFI.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Export Control Act
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Nigel Griffiths)
  The consultation on the draft orders to be made under the Export Control Act 2002 ended on 30 April. Two hundred and fifty eight consultation responses were received, many of which are extremely detailed. The secondary legislation is currently being finalised in the light of the responses. It is expected that the orders will be laid before Parliament in October 2003. A further announcement on the timetable for the coming into force of the secondary legislation will made after careful consideration of the responses on the proposed implementation periods.

  Nuclear Sites arid Radioactive Substances Bill
  The Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services (Mr. Stephen Timms)
  The Government announced in the Queen's Speech that draft legislation for implementing the proposals in the White Paper "Managing the Nuclear Legacy—A Strategy for Action" (Cm 5552) would be published for comment in the course of this Session.

  I am pleased to announce that the draft Bill is being published today together with explanatory notes outlining its effect and the objectives it is intended to achieve. Copies are available from the Vote and Printed Paper Offices.
  35WS
  The Government are publishing the Bill in draft in line with its commitment to openness and transparency and active engagement of stakeholders in implementation of its proposed new arrangements for managing the decommissioning and clean up of public sector civil nuclear liabilities. The deadline for comments is 16 September.

  For the same reason, the DTI is also publishing other documents—in particular a draft management statement outlining the intended relationship between Government and the proposed Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) and a draft Memorandum of Understanding between the NDA and the nuclear regulators—so as to give stakeholders a better understanding of the overall framework within which the NDA will operate. Copies of these documents are also available from the Vote Office and Printed Paper Offices.

  The draft Bill as published does not include two detailed Schedules dealing with successor companies and taxation. These will be added to the Bill prior to its introduction into Parliament. In each case, however, these notes explain the purpose of the Schedule and what they are expected to cover. Amendments will also be made to the draft Bill prior to introduction to reflect the fact that the NDA will have functions which relate to both reserved and devolved matters and so will be similar to cross border authorities designated under the terms of the Scotland Act 1998.

TRANSPORT

  Mobile Phones
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson)
  The Department for Transport has today announced the results of public consultation on a proposal for a new offence of using a hand-held mobile phone while driving. The consultation was launched on 20 August last year and closed on 25 November 2002. Over 1,000 responses were received and some 88 per cent. were broadly in favour of the introduction of a new offence.

  A regulation, subject to the negative resolution procedure, will be laid before Parliament as soon as possible to prohibit the use of a hand-held mobile phone while driving. It is intended that the new offence should take effect from 1 December 2003. Initially offenders will be subject to a £30 fixed penalty notice, increased to
  36WS
  a maximum fine of £1,000 (or £2,500 for drivers of lorries, buses and coaches) if the matter goes to court. When a suitable legislative opportunity arises the offence will be made subject to the endorsement of 3 penalty points.

  Copies of the letter announcing the results and a summary of the points made during consultation have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Rape and Sexual Assault Overseas
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr Mullin)
  While most visits abroad are trouble-free, the FCO is becoming increasingly aware of people being raped while they are overseas. In 2002, 129 cases of rape were reported to British consular staff overseas. It is likely that many cases go unreported.

  Rape and sexual assault can, and do, happen to people from all walks of life—women, men, young and old. It is a very traumatic experience in any circumstance. That trauma can often be made even more difficult to deal with when the rape happens abroad.

  The FCO is committed to helping victims. We want them to come forward and seek assistance from the nearest British Consulate. Equally, we want to give advice to travellers before they go to help ensure their personal safety. The new FCO information leaflet on 'Rape and Sexual Assault Overseas' was written in conjunction with NGOs and the Police and aims to provide advice on personal safety for travellers, information for victims of rape and sexual assault and their families and useful contact information.

  The launch of the information leaflet forms part of the 'Know Before You Go' campaign which, working with travel industry partners, encourages travellers to be better prepared before travelling overseas. The FCO website http://www.fco.gov.uk/knowbeforeyougo provides advice for travel overseas including guidance on taking out travel insurance, country-specific travel information and checklists for specific groups such as backpackers and independent travellers, women travellers; those visiting friends and relatives overseas.

  I hope colleagues will join in disseminating this information.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Peterborough.

Lord Cullen of Whitekirk
William Douglas Cullen, having been created Baron Cullen of Whitekirk, of Whitekirk in the County of East Lothian, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Rodger of Earlsferry and the Baroness Linklater of Butterstone.

Sun Exposure and Skin Cancer
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff Baroness Finlay of Llandaff asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they plan any action to discourage sun exposure, including the use of sunbeds, particularly among young people at risk of developing skin cancer.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Warner): My Lords, we have, with key stakeholders, developed the SunSmart campaign, run by Cancer Research UK. The campaign was launched in March and funded by the UK health departments. Campaign leaflets and posters have been sent to all GP surgeries, secondary schools and health promotion units. A copy of the leaflet is in the Library of the House.
The advice given by the Health and Safety Executive on sunbeds is that no one should exceed 20 sunbed sessions per year. Under-16s are advised not to use sunbeds at all. The Department of Health "SunSafe" webpages provide advice on sun safety and are designed to be attractive to children.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lord, I thank the Minister for his reply and take the opportunity to congratulate him on his appointment. I declare an interest as someone who has had sun-induced skin cancer and who has been married to a dermatologist.
I have grave concerns about the Minister's reply, because the excellent campaign with Cancer Research UK has only just started. Does the Minister recognise that Australia, after a 20-year ongoing campaign, has managed to cut the numbers of deaths through malignant melanoma? Even though Australia has a higher number of cases per annum, it has about 1,000 deaths per annum, whereas we have about 1,640 per annum. Malignant melanoma is now the third main killer of young people.
126
Does the Minister also recognise that schools need to be actively involved in a long-term campaign so that children do not have PE at lunchtime out in the open, are encouraged to cover up, and schools are encouraged to create shade?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her welcoming remarks. It is worth informing the House that the Sun Know How campaign was run by the Health Education Authority between 1994 and 2000, so it is not as though we are just starting with this particular campaign. We intend to carry on with the campaign, as I think I made clear in my initial Answer. Children are at the centre of the campaign. Much effort is being devoted to making the webpage attractive to them. The national and regional media, broadcast and print, carry a lot of information about the campaign which provides parents with information to give to their children.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, while I greatly welcome the public health campaign, the SunSmart campaign, will the Minister consider the regulation of sunbed parlours? As he knows, sunbeds double the risk of contracting skin cancer. Are sunbed parlours inspected by the National Care Standards Commission or will they be inspected by CHI? Are there any limits on the use of sunbeds by under-16s, as is proposed in Scotland?
Lord Warner: My Lords, the Department of Health's medical view is that the use of sunbeds should be discouraged. However, I draw the noble Lord's attention to the advisory committee on non-ionizing radiation chaired by Sir Richard Doll which recommended that the use of sunbeds and sun lamps for cosmetic tanning should be discouraged. However, it also said that the scientific evidence is as yet insufficient to permit a firm conclusion regarding a causal relationship between the use of tanning lamps and skin cancer. Inspecting and ensuring safety in parlours where sun lamps and sunbeds are used is the responsibility of the Health and Safety Executive, which has issued guidance on the subject, and local environmental health officers.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords—
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, will my noble friend explain—
The Lord President of the Council (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, is going to ask a question about Australia.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, as an Australian I have suffered many skin cancers although I came to live in the northern hemisphere in my early twenties. However, it is what you do in terms of exposure to the sun when you are young that matters. Fortunately, basal cell carcinoma is not the same as melanomas, which are much more horrific, but I must have had dozens removed. Does the Minister

127
appreciate that in Australia the "Slip, Slop, Slap" campaign—that is, slip on your cream, slap on your hat and so on—has been more effective since sportsmen have put cream on their faces? They comprise the peer group for young people. As I say, it is what you do in terms of exposure to the sun when you are young that matters. The peer group for young people comprises sports heroes. Will the Minister ensure that sports heroes are also involved in such campaigns in this country?
Lord Warner: My Lords, we miss Shane Warne and his icon image covered up in the sun. We must approach Michael Vaughan and see what he can offer.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, can my noble friend explain the role of the Health and Safety Executive because, quite rightly, it gave guidance as to how often people should use sunbeds, but surely its role is defined in the 1974 Act as being responsible for looking after people at work? Is my noble friend really suggesting that everyone who is on a sunbed is at work in a "slip, slop, slap" in a massage parlour?
Lord Warner: No, my Lords, but I am suggesting that the Health and Safety Executive issued guidance in 1995 on the use of sunbeds in commercial premises. The fact that they are in commercial premises means that the HSE becomes involved.
Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act, Section 3, obliges employers to protect members of the public who may be at risk because of their faulty working practices?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I understand that. The Health and Safety Executive has issued extensive information and literature on controlling health risks and on the use of ultra violet tanning equipment. That information is available to people running sunbed parlours and to the public.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, what is the percentage of people who go abroad and get skin cancers as compared with those who holiday at home?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I do not think that information is available but I shall inquire and write to the noble Baroness.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the Question seems to relate mostly to children. Does it mean that those who are of riper years are all right from the point of view of sunbeds and sun?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I believe that all of us should wear a T-shirt, a wide-brimmed hat, sunglasses and factor 15 sunscreen when out in the sun.

Foreign Direct Investment
2.51 p.m.
Lord Watson of Richmond Lord Watson of Richmond asked Her Majesty's Government:
What measures they intend to take to reverse the decline in the United Kingdom's share of foreign investment from outside the European Union.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, latest Eurostat figures show that in 2000 the UK had 52.9 per cent of the stock of foreign direct investment from outside the European Union. That was a drop of 2.1 percentage points on 1999. We do not have more recent comparable figures as other countries in Europe are not as prompt as we are in delivering their figures.
Ernst & Young's project-based figures for 2002 make it clear that the UK continues to attract more investment than any other country except for the US. The Government are determined to see the UK retain its position as No. 1 in Europe and will continue to pursue economic policies that will ensure that.
Lord Watson of Richmond: My Lords, I am most grateful to the Minister for that reply, and congratulate him on his additional responsibilities. However, I am sure that he will confirm that one statistic brought to his attention was that published at the beginning of the month by the European Commission data office. It made it clear that, since the introduction of the euro-zone, our share of foreign investment from outside the European Union has declined from 48 per cent to 25 per cent. In the light of that startling and worrying trend, would he not confirm that any advocacy of ruling out membership of the euro-zone in perpetuity would be something of a suicide note?
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that question. I do not recognise the statistics that he gives. The statistics that I have from government sources and Ernst & Young paint a quite different picture. For example, the latest figures from the Office for National Statistics show that foreign direct investment stock in the UK in the fourth quarter of 2002 was at a record level of £396.2 billion, an increase of £15.6 billion, or 4 per cent, on the same quarter in 2001.
The Government are confident that a successfully operating economic and monetary union, and UK membership of the euro on the right basis, would boost inward investment over the longer term. However, there is a risk that the longer the membership of the euro is delayed, the longer the potential gains in terms of increased inward investment are postponed.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, would it not be unfortunate if anyone attempted to talk down the British economy simply in order to try to make a case

129
for the euro? Is it not the case that, for the past three years, Britain has had more foreign inward investment than either France or Germany? Even if our market share has declined—that would not be surprising as the figures are very volatile—it is certainly the case, as Patricia Hewitt said the other day, that Britain is and remains the No. 1 location in the ELI for inward investment.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I am very grateful to a former Chancellor for paying tribute to the way in which the present Chancellor has looked after the British economy. I absolutely agree that no one should run down Britain's contribution, because we have done a most extraordinarily good job and will continue to do so.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, my noble friend said that he did not recognise the statistics cited by the noble Lord, Lord Watson, and implied that there might be some contradiction between them and those of Ernst & Young. From what has been said this afternoon, there is no contradiction, as one talked about total inward investment and the other about inward investment to the UK from outside the euro-zone. Is it not quite plausible to suppose that people outside the euro-zone would be increasingly worried about non-membership of the eurozone by Britain, because they have double exchange rate jeopardy as they invest in Europe and, in particular, in Britain?
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, my noble friend makes a very good point. With sterling and the euro, if a big firm is interested in investing in the UK there is always the problem of coping with the exchange rate. As to his first point—that there may not be a contradiction between my statistics and those given by the noble Lord, Lord Watson—I shall have to look at those statistics afterwards.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, further to the Question of my noble friend, his source is the Financial Times, which is widely recognised in this House and outside to be a wholly reputable newspaper.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, if it is not so recognised by some Conservative Members, I think that the great spectrum of opinion in this country is that it is a newspaper that can be relied on. I am rather surprised that anyone should think otherwise.
There was a considerable play on words, in that the absolute amount and the proportion are two different things. My noble friend pointed out that the proportion of foreign direct investment from outside the euro-zone and the European Union into Britain has just about halved. That is serious, even though the absolute figures may have increased. It is not to
130
anyone's benefit to pretend that the facts are other than they are, and I thank the Minister for addressing the issue as he has tried to do.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I am not in any way pretending that matters are not as they seem. I merely say that I was presented with a set of statistics that are at variance with the material that I have been given.
I am afraid that I do not agree totally about the Financial Times. A big article yesterday on regional selective assistance—that has a bearing on foreign investment in our country—had inflammatory headlines. On reading the text, one found that things were not quite as bad as the headlines suggested.
I say again that I shall look at the statistics. I do not think that there is a great difference between my position and that of the noble Lord, Lord Watson: we are both basically on the same side.
Lord Peston: My Lords, will my noble friend really stick to his guns, which I take it are that the figures are extremely difficult to interpret and that it would be foolhardy to jump to any conclusions about something that happens in the very short term? However, does he agree—I speak as someone who would join the single currency—that the exchange rate question is beside the point? If an American firm is thinking of investing here, it is concerned about sterling against the dollar. If it is thinking of investing in France, it is concerned with the euro against the dollar. In both cases, there is an exchange rate risk. From that point of view, the exchange rate is neither here nor there.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, the variance in statistics may have something to do with the difference between stock and flow, which is not a matter that we ought to get into this afternoon. Other than that, I agree with everything that my noble friend said.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, speaking of figures that can be relied on, did not the Chancellor recently assess foreign investment and trade in his 18 studies? Did he not come to the conclusion that our trade could increase by 50 per cent if we joined the euro-zone? Will the Minister remind the House which particular currency unions the Chancellor studied to arrive at that conclusion? Were they not Angola and Mozambique, Burkina Faso and Chad, Vatican City and San Marino, and Tuvalu and Tonga?
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I shall certainly not write to the noble Lord! That question is very wide of the Question on the Order Paper. We have here a great British success story. We attract massive inward investment. Every party should do everything it can to support that. What we should not do is to quibble over issues that are not relevant to the Question that I am answering.

Iraq: DfID Involvement
3 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever Lord Astor of Hever asked Her Majesty's Government:
How many officials from the Department for International Development are currently working in Iraq.
The Secretary of State for International Development (Baroness Amos): My Lords, the Department for International Development presently has 24 officials, including short-term consultants in Iraq. Nine are with the Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad. These include the new director of operations and advisers on food distribution, health, refugees, salary payments and infrastructure. In Basra, five are working with the Coalition Provisional Authority on economic management, legal affairs and governance; three are seconded to the UK military; and two are liaising with humanitarian agencies. DfID has also seconded seven consultants to support UN agencies, five of whom are currently stationed in Iraq.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I am grateful to the Secretary of State for providing the House with those figures. But aid agencies tell us that there are far too few people on the front line. Considering that they also say that co-ordination between DfID, the MoD and the Coalition Provisional Authority is so poor, why are there not more DfID officials there? Will the noble Baroness explain why so little forethought was put into planning for the collapse of civilian authority in Iraq?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I do not accept what the noble Lord has said. We have individuals who are working with the CPA and who are co-ordinating between ourselves, the MoD and the FCO; we have had officials in Basra who are located with the UK military; and we have put substantial resources into the United Nations, the World Food Programme, UNICEF and other UN organisations, and into NGOs which are working on the ground. When noble Lords see work being done in Iraq—when they see water supplies being fixed and electricity being supplied—that is done with British money through DfID.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, is not one of the greatest incentives to departmental officials—but in particular to departmentally sponsored NGO involvement in Iraq—the very high cost of life insurance for people who go on to the front line, which often runs into thousands of pounds per person per week? Is my noble friend prepared to ask officials in her department to consider, without any prior commitment, the establishment of a scheme whereby the Government act as the insurer of last resort—because this problem is acting as a major disincentive to NGO involvement?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that the question of insurance has been a
132
problem for some NGOs; indeed, it was a problem for some contractors used by the Department for International Development. We sent security staff out to Iraq. We put together our own safety regulations, which have helped us in this instance. But I recognise the problem that my noble friend has raised and I am happy to take it away and re-examine it.
Baroness Northover: My Lords, is the Minister aware that a senior British official is reported as saying that the US-led administration in Iraq is:
"the single most chaotic organisation I have ever worked for"?
What advice are the Government giving to their coalition partners on the reconstruction of Iraq?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, noble Lords will be aware that there have been some problems with the administration in respect of the CPA, particularly in Baghdad. I have addressed these questions in the House previously. The question of safety and security is particularly problematic and is hampering not only CPA efforts but the efforts of the UN and NGOs on the ground. It is a matter that we have to address with a great deal of urgency. Noble Lords are perhaps aware of the latest reports on television and radio regarding the possibility of a further attack on our own forces just north of Basra. So the situation is extraordinarily serious and is holding up the reconstruction effort. We are putting a great deal of effort into this. In addition to staff from DfID, staff from other government departments are working with colleagues in the CPA and with Iraqis in the department there.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, following the Secretary of State's Answer to my noble friend Lord Astor of Hever, if it is safe enough for 24 officials from DfID to be in Iraq, when does she plan to visit Iraq?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I plan to visit Iraq as soon as possible. Noble Lords will know that I had planned a visit last week, but the security advice that I received in respect of a high-profile visit was to the effect that I should not go. I will go there as soon as I can; and, of course, we have kept the security of our own staff under constant review.
Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the apparent decision to exclude all former members of the Iraqi Ba'ath party, however junior, from working is not only causing unemployment to a very serious extent in Iraq but is excluding from the reconstruction process a number of highly qualified people who would be very ready to undertake those tasks?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the de-Ba'athification process is under constant discussion. No decisions have yet been taken. There was a concern that the first three levels should perhaps be excluded. The implications of that in terms of the administration in Iraq is being looked at. What we want to see is Iraqis

133
working to reconstruct the country. They have the skills—they need the resources from us to assist them in doing that, but the skills exist within the country.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, in answer to my Question yesterday, the noble Lord, Lord Bach, said that the Government were not aware of any cases of radiation sickness among civilians in Iraq. Imagine my surprise to hear on the "Today" programme this morning a report that every day five such cases involving children are being discovered in the south of Baghdad, due to people looting dangerous nuclear material. Does the Minister think that she has enough people in Iraq to know exactly what is going on? This would appear to have serious implications for our security as well as for the security of people living in Iraq.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, perhaps I have not made myself clear. The information that we have about what is going on in Iraq comes not only from DfID staff; it comes from those organisations that have a great deal of experience—far longer experience than we have—in that they have worked there for many years. We have currently given funding of some £115 million to different NGOs which are working on the ground, including UN organisations, UNICEF, MSF, the ICRC and other organisations on the ground.
As regards the issue of radiation sickness, there is a BBC report about the nuclear facility that focuses on accounts of the local population in the area having looted drums and containers from the site, emptying low-enriched uranium from them and taking the containers to use for water storage. However, the World Health Organisation has not received any report of suspected radiation sickness in the local hospitals. It did receive reports of the local population's possible exposure to risk. The World Health Organisation is examining the matter. It is best placed to look at it. When I have any further information, I shall be happy to write to the noble Lord.
Baroness Nicholson of Winterbourne: My Lords—
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am so sorry, but I am afraid that we are over time.

EU Council of Ministers: President
3.9 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford Lord Howell of Guildford asked Her Majesty's Government:
What discussions they have had with the governments of the 10 European Union accession states about the proposal to create the post of a full-time President of the European Union Council of Ministers.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have held discussions with all the EU accession countries, as well
134
as with existing member states, on the proposals for a full-time Council chair. The Government support these proposals, which would give the Council's work greater continuity and coherence. Heads of government of member states and accession countries will further examine these proposals, and others put forward in the draft constitutional treaty, at an intergovernmental conference later this year.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. But does she realise that, although many of these small countries, particularly the new applicants, accept the need for a longer rotation of the presidency, they regard the idea of a full-time President of the Council, elected or chosen behind closed doors—a kind of new "Mr Europe" or "Ms Europe"—as a huge mistake? Does she recall that these smaller countries used to regard Britain as their champion and friend but now one hears them saying that we are siding with the big boys in a Europe which will be less equal and less congenial to the smaller nations? Is that really what we want?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I should point out that I do not believe that concern is limited only to accession countries. The fact is that many of the small countries have concerns about this matter and we understand those concerns. But Her Majesty's Government believe that the proposals for a full-time chair are not the recipe for big state domination which some of the smaller countries fear they are. The chair is designed to add coherence and continuity and not to lock in the interests of any particular member state or states.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that the larger the European Union becomes and the more countries it contains, the less well will integration work and the more hardship could arise from each country having no control over its own currency?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we are considering the possibility of a presidency. Perhaps I may try to concentrate my responses on how that presidency will operate in relation to smaller countries. The current system was created when there were only six countries in the European Community. The fact is that it is already creaking under the strain of the current number of members. Many countries believe that the current system will become unworkable with the much hoped-for expansion of the European Union. For that reason among others—coherence and continuity, which we believe are so important—we have supported these proposals.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, does the Minister accept that there is no difference in interest between accession countries and existing member countries in seeing the strategic plans of the European Union properly drawn up and carried forward from one period of six months to another and that, in any event, with the rotation that would exist between 25 member states, no country would have a day in the

135
sun very frequently? Does she also accept that what is important is effectiveness in chairing the presidency and in ensuring that representation of all member countries is achieved in other ways?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree with that almost entirely. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, who, after all, has had the opportunity to consider these matters rather more closely than some of us, expresses it very well when he says that this issue is not about a day in the sun for a particular country. I stress that we are already working under a strain with 15 member states and, if we do not make some changes, we shall be under even greater pressure in trying to work effectively with an EU of 25 members.
I believe we must consider what the Council chair would do in driving forward the work, in ensuring proper preparation and continuity on the basis of the General Affairs Council, and in presenting a report to the European Parliament after each meeting of the European Council. Much in these proposals is positive. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that I believe this is a crucial point. It is an issue that will benefit all countries in the European Union and will not bring about a division between accession countries and those who are already in the Union or a division between the big and small countries.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, can the Minister explain to your Lordships how the cause of democracy will be advanced by this proposal? By "democracy", of course, I mean the interests and will of the people of Europe as opposed to their governments, bureaucracies and so on.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I did not think the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, believed that the current position was serving the purposes of democracy that well. I am interested to know that he now seems to imply that we are not doing that badly if we do not need this type of change.
However, perhaps I may take him up on the point about why this arrangement would be better. We believe it would be better because at present we are chopping and changing every six months. The fact is that the work of the European Union comes to a halt as we go through a handover period. We are going through one such period at the moment in the changeover between the Greek and Italian presidencies. The whole point of considering a President or a chair of the Council is to ensure a carrying-forward of the will of the European Union. The preparation and continuity of that work would be enormously important and I believe that, with better representation in that way, the purposes of democracy would be well served.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that, in light of what she and the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, said about the new chairman—I believe that that is what was contained in
136
the report to Parliament yesterday—or President or whatever one cares to call it, there seems to be some difference of view on the matter? It would not simply be a job which entails preparing and carrying forward the agenda but, as the Prime Minister said in Cardiff. the President of the Council would be a man or woman speaking for the European Union on the world stage. The new President of Europe would be able to speak directly on the telephone or otherwise to the President of the Union States. The job seems to be far bigger than preparing an agenda and carrying it forward.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, of course there would be a role for any chairman or President, and there is an interesting discussion about the nomenclature that we are using here. We have said "chairman". I understand that there is no French equivalent of that; the French have used the word "president", and there may be some interesting discussions around that. But the noble Lord is right: one of the functions envisaged for the Council chair is to ensure external representation of the Union but without prejudice to the responsibilities of the Commission President and the putative Minister for Foreign Affairs.
The important point about these proposals is that we do not want to unbalance the institutional architecture. All the institutions—the Commission, the Council, the European Parliament and the Court of Justice—need to be strengthened. They have all been considered during the course of the work that the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, and our other colleagues—notably, the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson—have been undertaking on our behalf. I very much look forward to discussing them in due course when we come to debate the IGC.

Taxation and Higher Incomes
3.17 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have plans to increase taxation of people on higher incomes and, if so, at what level of income would it apply.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord McIntosh of Haringey): My Lords, the Government have committed themselves not to increase the basic or top rates of income tax within the lifetime of this Parliament.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I thank the Minister for what is not really an unsurprising reply. Is it not a fact that since 1997 the tax burden has risen by £118 billion, which includes a 1 per cent rise on income tax, thinly disguised as a rise on national insurance? Given that that is already a huge tax hike, does the

137
Minister agree that his right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer needs no lessons at all from Peter Hain on how to pick the taxpayer's pocket? Perhaps he does not agree with that and believes that there is more yet for the Chancellor to learn.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the figure that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, gives, as she knows perfectly well because she is well instructed in these matters, is meaningless. Perhaps I may set out the position correctly. For the family of a single earner on average earnings, with two children, the effective rate of tax is 20.1 per cent compared with 20.9 per cent in 1997 and is in fact the lowest figure since 1979–80. If we consider the effective, as opposed to the marginal, rate of taxation and take into account the effect of tax credits, we have a progressive tax system in which the burden is one of the lowest in the developed countries in the world.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, does not the noble Baroness raise an important point, not least in her supplementary question and, if I may anticipate it, that of the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi? It exposes how impossible it is to have a serious debate on an important issue of taxation. But even worse, as I am sure my noble friend will agree, was the attitude of my right honourable friends the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was quite intolerable to stop our right honourable friend Peter Hain even raising the issue, no matter how lacking he was in understanding the tax system. Does my noble friend accept that? He might even be promoted if he agrees.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the answer is that which I gave at the outset. The Government have committed themselves not to increase the basic or top rates of income tax within the life time of this Parliament. Given that, discussion of tax rates is always worth while and valuable.
Lord Blackwell: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that the figures he quoted exclude national insurance, which rose in the previous Budget? Will he say whether the pledge not to raise higher rates of taxation also applies to national insurance rates?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Blackwell, who is also well informed in these matters, knows perfectly well that the rise in national insurance to pay for extra expenditure in the health service follows very sound principles laid down by Beveridge in the 1940s. They are that those who are earning should pay for the health service, which is provided for those who are earning and those who are in retirement.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, can my noble friend confirm that in the government led by the then Mrs Thatcher from 1979 for the next nine years the top rate of tax was 60 per cent and the marginal rate was 90 per cent?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there were a number of different top rates of tax under the Thatcher and Major governments. I do not believe that I should be called on to summarise them in the context of Starred Questions.
Lord Newby: My Lords, we on these Benches agree with the Minister that there is great value in having a debate about the appropriate level of taxation. Does he accept that as a starting point for such a debate the Government might care to point out that if income tax were introduced at the rate of 50 per cent for all incomes over £100,000, that would raise £4.5 billion additional resources which might be used, for example, to scrap student fees, increase the basic pension or provide free care for the elderly? I inform the Minister that we on these Benches look forward to fighting the next election on that basis.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Liberal Democrat Party has been spending the extra money from a 50 per cent rate on incomes over £100,000 in different ways over the past few months and years. Only last week, we were told by those on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench in another place that it would be used to reduce council tax. I should he interested to see how the noble Lord, Lord Newby, squares that with his proposals today.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, is the spectre of higher income tax just the good news from the Chancellor? Does not the Chancellor actually plan new capital gains tax on houses, a new wealth tax, higher stamp duty and higher VAT? All of those would help him to control our economy in the unlikely event that we joined the euro.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am glad that we on these Benches have resisted the temptation of anticipating the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi. He has a wider range of sources of irrelevant quotations than anyone else I have ever met. I am glad that he did not use them today. The noble Lord knows perfectly well that he is putting up an Aunt Sally. There are no plans to make the changes to which he refers.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, says that that is so bad, why did the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, say that it was so good?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Well, my Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, has experience as a former Chancellor of the Exchequer, and his judgment on this matter and on this occasion was very sound.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, if I congratulate the present Chancellor of the Exchequer on so bravely and wisely sticking to a top rate of 40 per cent tax, will the Minister join me in congratulating a previous Chancellor of the Exchequer, Nigel Lawson, on introducing the top rate of tax in 1988? Was the Minister as surprised as I was when he gave me a Written Answer last year which said

139
that if the top 98 per cent rate in force when Mrs Thatcher took over the government were applied at today's price level it would cut in at a marginal income of £76,000 a year?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not believe that I could have been surprised by the Answer I gave to the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford. I must at least have read it first, even if I did not actually write it. However, the lesson from the past six years is surely that because of the Chancellor's success at management of the economy there are far more people in all of those higher income earnings brackets. For example, in 1997 only 100,000 people were earning more than £100,000 a year; now more than 400,000 do so. We should not merely consider their income in that regard; we should also refer to their wealth, including their housing wealth, which has increased by 40 per cent in the past six years. All of that makes marginal quibblings about what is called the "tax burden" appear rather irrelevant.

Criminal Justice Bill
3.25 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That it be an instruction to the Committee of the Whole House to whom the Criminal Justice Bill has been committed that they consider the Bill in the following order:

Clauses 1 to 10,

Schedule 1,

Clauses 11 to 27,

Schedule 2,

Clauses 28 to 39,

Schedule 3,

Clauses 40 to 69,

Schedule 4,

Clauses 70 to 106,

Schedule 5,

Clauses 107 to 128,

Schedule 6,

Clauses 129 to 172,

Schedule 7,

Clause 173,

Schedule 8,

Clauses 174 to 180,

Schedule 9,

Clauses 181 to 185,

Schedule 10,

Clauses 186 to 210,

Schedule 11,

Clauses 211 to 215,

Schedule 12,

Clauses 216 to 220,

Schedules 13 and 14,

Clause 221,

Schedule 15,

Clauses 222 to 230,

140

Schedule 16,

Clauses 231 to 254,

Schedule 17,

Clauses 255 to 261,

Schedule 18,

Clauses 262 and 263,

Schedule 19,

Clause 264,

Schedule 20,

Clause 265,

Schedules 21 and 22,

Clauses 266 to 268,

Schedule 23,

Clause 269,

Schedule 24,

Clauses 270 to 278,

Schedule 25,

Clauses 279 to 282,

Schedule 26,

Clauses 283 to 291,

Schedule 27,

Clauses 292 to 294,

Schedule 28,

Clauses 295 to 298,

Schedule 29,

Clauses 299 and 300,

Schedule 30,

Clause 301,

Schedule 31,

Clause 302,

Schedule 32,

Clauses 303 to 307.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Royal Security: Windsor Castle
3.26 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement made in another place. The Statement was as follows:
"With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a Statement on the serious breach of security at Windsor Castle last Saturday evening, 21st June.
"The Metropolitan Commissioner has already apologised personally to the Royal Family and, on behalf of the Government and this House, I too offer my deep regret to Her Majesty and the Royal Family for the events of Saturday evening.
"Yesterday afternoon I received a six-page report from the commissioner. This is a preliminary report which I have discussed with the commissioner this morning. A further detailed review has already been set in train. However, it may help the House if I summarise the chronology of events in the report.
"At 8 p.m., Aaron Barschak appeared at the main entrance of Windsor Castle. He was refused entry by the police and, following an impromptu public comic turn, was asked to move on.
"At about 10 p.m., Mr Barschak entered the castle grounds at Chapter Mews. He climbed a steep bank, scaled a tree and leapt across on to a castle wall. From here he climbed to the North Terrace.

141
"As he advanced along the North Terrace he was challenged by a contractor. By this time he had changed into fancy dress. He presented as being slightly drunk and said that he was a party guest who was lost. The contractor escorted him to one of the side entrances to the castle where a police officer was on duty. The police officer, who had to remain at his post, asked the contractor to take Mr Barschak to the main entrance to the party.
"There was no further challenge from either the police or other staff controlling access to the party. Mr Barschak was able to get unacceptably close to Prince William.
"Having appeared at the Prince's side, he then made his way to the bar, where a member of the castle staff challenged him. He was handed over to the police. Following interview and investigation by the police, which is still continuing, Mr Barschak was released on bail.
"I am sure that the House will appreciate that I have to ensure that my comments on this incident do not prejudice any possible police action against him. Nevertheless, Mr Barschak's actions have exposed an appalling failure in the security at Windsor Castle which simply should not have happened. I know that the Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police agrees with this.
"I am determined that lessons should be learned from this incident. A detailed police inquiry is being conducted by a senior officer, Commander Frank Armstrong of the City of London Police. The report of that investigation will determine conclusively what went wrong on the night, and whether disciplinary action needs to be taken.
"This report will be available within the next four weeks and it is my intention, in consultation with Sir John Stevens, to publish the report. But neither the police nor I are awaiting that report before considering what further security measures need to be taken. This is the subject of urgent work with the Royal Household by the Metropolitan Police and my officials.
"My particular concern is that this very serious breach of security occurred despite extensive security and surveillance measures already in place at Windsor Castle. Further work has been carried out over the last few months and more is planned for the autumn. Security at all royal residences remains under constant review, but at this stage we have no reason to believe that there were any technical failures at Windsor on Saturday night.
"Assistant Commissioner David Veness of the Metropolitan Police has made it clear that the events of Saturday night are wholly unacceptable, and I share that view. That is why, within the confines of the inquiry and possible further police action, I have sought to give the House a picture of the events of Saturday night.
142
"I want to assure the House that by working together with the police and the Royal Household, lessons can be learned from this event which can only improve the security of the Royal Family for the future.
"I know that the whole House will share this objective.".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I thank the Minister for repeating the Statement made by her right honourable friend a short while ago in another place.
This is indeed a matter of great concern. It is perhaps disappointing that the Home Secretary made certain statements to the press yesterday before Parliament had the opportunity to hear his views today. The Home Secretary was reported yesterday as saying that he does not have direct responsibility for specific police operations. I agree. But it is his job to ensure that they are able to co-ordinate security effectively.
It is clear that the security systems themselves failed in a wholly unacceptable way. Indeed, the Home Secretary himself recognised in his response to Questions in another place today that there was a systemic failure. Our purpose in considering this Statement and the event to which it refers, should be to learn the lessons and improve the systems of protection, rather than to satisfy any political or administrative witch-hunt. What lessons have the Government learned about their own responsibilities for the future security of our Royal Family, and more generally of all of us?
The Minister says that urgent work is now being undertaken and that a report will be published in about four weeks. That will be during the Summer Recess. Will the Government make arrangements for the House to debate this important report during the September spill-over period?
3.32 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I also thank the Minister for repeating the Statement. I endorse almost all of the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay.
Only a week ago I was attending a seminar of the Windsor Leadership Trust in Windsor Castle. I was impressed by the courtesy and kindness of the security and police staff in the way that they directed me to the place that I was attending. It was therefore a complete shock to hear what happened during Prince William's 21st birthday party. I share the concern expressed by the Home Secretary and the Prime Minister about the incident. One shudders to think, in the present days of high terrorist alert, what would have happened if it had been someone other than a foolish comedian.
Concern has already been expressed by my colleagues in the other place. It is right for the Home Secretary to have ordered an urgent inquiry. Everybody—whatever their views—must understand the need for senior royals to have proper police protection. It is a relief that once again a breach of royal

143
security resulted in no harm—but we can never be too careful. Equally, no matter how high and tough the security, there will from time to time be incidents of this type, and it is the duty of us all to ensure that we are all vigilant.
We share the objectives that the Home Secretary has set out, and they have our full support. A detailed inquiry is continuing. It would be unwise to comment any further. We must await the recommendations.
3.34 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for the understanding and support that they have voiced in relation to this matter. Regarding the questions raised by the noble Baroness, we are doing everything that we can to learn the lessons from what happened on this occasion. It will be critical for us to establish the facts before we can make any informed judgment about them. It would be a matter for the usual channels to arrange a debate at an appropriate time, if that is the desire of the House. We shall do all that we can to ensure that the report is made available to Members of this House as soon as is reasonably practicable, so that everyone will have an opportunity to consider it.
I particularly endorse the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, about the need for individual vigilance, for a balanced response and to await the outcome. I thank the noble Lord for the sensitive way in which he responded to the Statement.
3.35 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, noble Lords will be only too thankful that the reason for the incident turned out to be what it was. Of course the matter is serious. Is there not one lesson that we can learn, which is that perhaps prominent people, when they have a party, should not have it in fancy dress for the time being?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the comment of the noble Baroness will be fully understood. It is important, but even prominent people occasionally like to have a little fun.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the comment about fancy dress parties is apt. It is the ideal cover for any gatecrasher or terrorist.
Does the Minister agree that we must not become paranoid about safety and action against terrorism? Given that the Royal Family wish to keep in touch with the people of this country, if we separate them so much from the population, if we become so paranoid that we frighten ourselves almost to death, we will be doing the terrorists' work for them. Please could we handle the problem with a degree of decorum and not let the matter become out of hand?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, perhaps I may reassure noble Lords that we agree with the importance of their comments. This is not a case of becoming paranoid, but it is critical that we take
144
appropriately cautious action to make sure that the security arrangements are robust and effective. There are lessons to be learned and we are determined to learn them.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, my noble friend the Minister said that we should all be vigilant. Indeed, I sometimes see extraordinarily peculiar people in this House—but when I investigate they always turn out to be Peers.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I could not possibly comment.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, could the Government arrange for our special forces to test the security at royal palaces, and then give a report to the security officials as to how they succeeded in getting in?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, it is a police operational matter. I am sure that when we have the report, every conceivable issue will be fully considered.
Lord Monson: My Lords, does the Minister agree that if our public figures, heaven forbid, behaved like eastern European, Latin American or Third World dictators and surrounded their houses and palaces with barbed wire, watchtowers and 24-hour floodlighting, after felling all the trees surrounding their palaces, then such incidents would be unlikely to occur—but at what a terrible cost? In a free country, a certain degree of risk is inevitable.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, it is a matter of balance. We are taking a balanced approach. We shall be able to put in place any additional measures, and I can assure noble Lords that we will show the usual British courage and flair.

Genetics
3.40 p.m.
Lord Warner: My Lords, I would like to repeat a Statement which has been made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health in another place. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a Statement about the White Paper on genetics and healthcare that we are publishing today. The paper, Our Inheritance, Our Future—Realising the potential of genetics in the NHS, is available from the Vote Office.
"Today's White Paper could not be published at a more appropriate time. This year marks the 50th anniversary of the publication by Francis Crick and James Watson of the structure of DNA. I begin by paying tribute to their work. DNA is the molecule of life from which our genes are made. The discovery of its double helix structure set the stage for 50 years of world-changing genetic advances. It has allowed scientists to decode the human genome and to identify and sequence all the 30,000 or so

145
genes which each of us carry in every cell of our body. This gigantic task was completed earlier this year. The UK has played a leading role in this ambitious international project, with a third of the genome being mapped at the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute in Cambridge.
"Increasing understanding of genetics will bring more accurate diagnosis, more personalised prediction of risk, new gene-based drugs and therapies, and better targeted prevention and treatment.
"In time we should be able to assess the risk an individual has of developing the country's biggest killers—cancer and coronary heart disease—as well as those like diabetes which limit people's lives. We will also learn more about how variations in our genes affect the way we respond to medicines. Further down the line, genetics will lead to the development of new therapies aimed not just at treating disease in novel ways 1put also at preventing it.
"Thus genetics has the potential to bring immense benefits for patients. Above all, genetics promises a more personalised approach to healthcare with interventions tailored to each person's own genetic profile. This science therefore encourages us to develop the personalised NHS suitable for the 21st century that the Government are committed to creating.
"Our vision is for the NHS to lead the world in taking maximum advantage of the safe, effective and ethical application of the new genetic knowledge and technologies for all patients as soon as they become available. This vision calls for an integrated strategy—a strategy that will support the generation of new knowledge and technologies; further develop centres of excellence in the NHS and facilitate the roll-out of genetics into all NHS services; and all within the context of a rigorous regulatory framework and greater public understanding and engagement. The White Paper sets out how this will be achieved.
"I believe there is no other healthcare system in the world better placed to harness the potential of genetic advances than the National Health Service. The values on which the NHS is based—providing care for all free at the point of use on the basis of need, not the ability to pay—are uniquely suited to capturing the benefits of the genetics revolution. They provide a bulwark against the inequalities of private insurance-based health systems where the prospect of a "genetic superclass" of the well and insurable, and a "genetic underclass" of the unwell and uninsurable, unable to pay the premiums for medical care, is for many a very real threat.
"Our NHS means that citizens in the UK can choose to take genetic tests free from the fear that should they test positive they face an enormous bill for treatment or insurance, or become priced out of care or cover altogether. Already in the United States of America, where 40 million people have no medical cover, developments in genetics have stirred precisely these concerns. As our understanding of
146
genetics increases, the case for private health insurance as an alternative to the NHS weakens. Thus scientific advance increasingly underpins the moral values which have long lain at the heart of a national health service.
"I am today announcing that over the next three years, the Government will invest an additional £50 million in England in developing genetics knowledge, skills and provision within the NHS. The White Paper that we are publishing today sets out detailed plans of how that money will be spent.
"The first step is to boost the capacity of NHS genetics centres. We will spend £18 million on a major programme to upgrade genetics laboratories. And we will expand the specialist genetics workforce with initiatives and investment to increase the number of laboratory scientists and genetics counsellors.
"For patients to gain the maximum benefits from genetics, genetics knowledge and technologies will need to permeate the whole of the NHS. We will spur the take-up of genetics by other specialties by spending over £7 million to support new genetics initiatives in primary care and mainstream NHS services such as cancer and CHD. And we will set up a new genetics education and training centre which will work with the professional bodies to ensure that all NHS healthcare staff receive appropriate education and training in genetics.
"The White Paper also sets out our intention to fund further research to help convert genetic discoveries into improved patient care. We will invest £4 million in pharmacogenetic research on existing medicines and we will set up a new chair and university department in pharmacogenetics.
"The most common inheritable single gene disorder in this country is cystic fibrosis. There are 7,500 children and young adults with this distressing condition in the UK. There is no cure and sufferers rarely survive beyond their twenties. We will provide a further £2.5 million over the next five years to help find a gene therapy cure for cystic fibrosis. And we will make available a further £3 million to support gene therapy research on other single gene disorders, and £4 million on gene therapy production facilities for NHS and other public sector researchers.
"But realising the maximum health benefits of genetics will require more than just support and investment in NHS services and in research. It can only be achieved if breakthroughs by the scientific community are matched by public support and understanding in the wider community.
"Against a background of great promise, we recognise that genetic advances bring very real ethical and social concerns. We are committed to providing positive safeguards to address those concerns. We have in place an integrated and robust system of regulation. We have already taken action by introducing a moratorium on the use of genetic test results by insurance companies. And we have

147
passed legislation to ban human reproductive cloning—one of the few countries in the world to have done so.
"Above all, the Government are committed to ensuring openness and transparency in genetic policy-making. In 1999, we set up the Human Genetics Commission. Last year the commission produced a major report on the use of personal genetic information. It identified the growing danger of DNA theft, whereby sensitive information about a person could be gained by stealing his DNA through, for example, discarded hair and then testing it without his knowledge or consent. The commission recommended that this should be illegal. I am able to announce today that the Government have accepted this recommendation. We will introduce legislation to make it an offence to test a person's DNA without his consent. The new offence will apply in all circumstances except as part of a person's medical treatment where consent is impossible to obtain, or the lawful use by police and courts.
"A core ethical principle in HGC's report is that no one should be unfairly discriminated against on the basis of his genetic characteristics. The Government wholeheartedly endorse this principle. We accept the HGC's recommendation to review the evidence and consider the appropriate means of addressing concerns in this area.
"By accepting these two key recommendations of the Human Genetics Commission, I hope that I have demonstrated the Government's willingness to engage in a genuine dialogue on genetics issues. We need not fear genetic advances if we debate the issues openly and put in place the proper public protections today.
"We are standing on the threshold of a revolution in healthcare. By working together, by building on our strengths, by making the necessary investment and careful preparation now, I believe that genetics can deliver real and lasting benefits in health and healthcare for all of us.
"I commend this White Paper to the House".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.49 p.m.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the Minister may well have lost count of the number of times he has been welcomed to his new post during the past few days. However, as this is the first opportunity I have had to make a contribution on that theme, I hope that he will allow me to offer my sincere congratulations to him on his appointment. I look forward to our future exchanges on health and social services policy issues, both in this Chamber and outside.
I welcome the Statement. The importance of leading-edge science and its potential benefits to society cannot be emphasised enough. Politicians of all parties have a duty to trumpet those benefits—not least in the field of genetics and other biological research in which public understanding lags behind that of the specialists—at
148
every legitimate opportunity. I say that because the Statement mentioned explicitly the need for public support and understanding of genetic research.
I agree with the Government that transparency and openness are essential elements of the public debate. Without such openness, misinformation and antiscientific reporting have a habit of gaining currency, and it is often difficult to then recapture a sense of balance in the popular media. One only has to think of the debate on genetically modified crops and foods to see how true that is.
Apart from that general situation, the work being done by the Sanger Institute through the good offices of the MRC and the Wellcome Trust depends on the recruitment of large numbers of people to donate samples and provide data for the biomedical collection that is being assembled. That collection will be needed to convert a huge amount of raw genetic code into potentially useful applications. In that context, I hope the Minister will agree that the choice of phraseology and language used to describe the procedures employed in research of this kind is of no little importance.
I welcome the new money earmarked for research—especially for research into cystic fibrosis and pharmacogenetics—and for investing in the provision of genetics knowledge within the NHS. It would be helpful to hear a little more about how the Government envisage the delivery of services at PCT level, not only from a clinical standpoint as new diagnostic techniques become available, but in terms of counselling and advice to patients. We will shortly have a nationwide ICAS service. Do the Government intend to incorporate this rather different kind of counselling and advocacy into the services offered by ICAS, or will delivery be achieved in another way?
I also welcome the Government's intention to stem all forms of unfair discrimination, and to prohibit DNA theft. We, for our part, will look constructively on any related legislation that the Government bring forward. However, we need to take great care before allowing access by the police to scientific data collected through scientific research. Also, we must examine carefully issues of patient consent. Can the Minister expand on that matter? Might he add some further comments about the Government's approach to the insurance industry and the regulation of insurance? I refer not only to health insurance, but to general life insurance and pensions.
Are the Government committed in principle to securing an extension to the moratorium agreed with the industry some time ago?
Great as the potential benefits are of this technology, there is a danger that they may be overhyped too early. I hope the Minister will agree that it is the responsibility of Ministers and others in public positions to carry the public along with the science—at a pace commensurate with its actual progress.
3.54 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I too welcome the Minister's reading of the Statement in another place. This will be a very good day for those families who have genetic predispositions and genetic disabilities and diseases such as cystic fibrosis and epilepsy. I agree that this paper is an extremely useful step forward; not only in terms of the additional resources that have been pledged by the Government, but also in terms of the imaginative and comprehensive way in which it plans to integrate developments in genetics into the health service.
An interesting point made in another place earlier today and again in the Statement was I that the moral values of the NHS in terms of social insurance are underpinned more than ever by advances in genetics. Many of us are concerned about the interface between genetic testing and private health insurance, and about the futures of those who cannot obtain private health insurance simply because of their predispositions and genetic make-up. The NHS is particularly important in underpinning that social insurance aspect which now comes to the fore and which will spread the risks.
That leads me to the question of the moratorium on genetic testing by insurance companies. It is very important that—at the very least—that should continue. We have had several discussions in the House about aspects of genetic testing, but we would like to see legislation. The Government have mentioned several areas for legislation in the White Paper, but they do not specifically say that they will legislate to prevent insurance companies insisting on genetic testing. A voluntary agreement only goes so far; it is not an adequate safeguard on a matter of such importance.
There are issues about treatments that are developed using genetic technology and know-how. For instance, how will NICE appraise those new treatments? Will NICE have the capacity to do that? Conventional treatments take up enough of NICE's resources, and clinicians, patients groups and others invariably show great impatience when NICE cannot deal quickly enough with that work.
I should again point out to the Minister that those with genetic conditions do not automatically qualify for free prescription charges, as do many other sufferers of chronic conditions. In tackling these genetic conditions, we should recognise that their treatment can be extremely expensive. We should alter the NHS rules and allow free medicines in those circumstances.
We on these Benches agree with the proposed controls on the supply of genetic tests to the public, as proposed by the Human Genetics Commission. We have passed comment before on the biobank project; we welcome the sampling and research I hat is to be done, but are concerned at the proportion of the MRC's funding devoted to it. I hope that the project can proceed—but without crippling die MRC's capacity in other fields.
150
We also agree with the proposals for the use of genetic information. That is an incredibly important new aspect of human rights, and it should be legislated for in the manner proposed.
Echoing an aspect of what the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said, it is extremely important that the public take on board and understand the developments and the way in which the Government propose to mainstream genetic treatments and developments. It is also important that they understand that the progress that we can make must genuinely go through, not just the experts in the NHS, but also through other clinical staff. There are also the patient and public involvement processes that have been set up over the past year and the fact that there will be a great many questions about the use of genetic information, genetic sampling and so on. They need to be fully prepared for that because the last thing we want in the middle of progress is any public apprehension about such technology.
4 p.m.
Lord Warner: My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their supportive remarks. I reassure noble Lords that I cannot be welcomed here too often. We agree entirely with the point made about not over-hyping the matter. It has to be taken forward in a balanced way, taking the public and healthcare professionals with us.
On patient consent, it is clear that we are responding to the Human Genetics Commission's concerns that people should not be tested without their consent. We shall explore the detail of how that legislation is put into effect. The issue relating to understandable concerns about taking care over access by the police to such information can be dealt with in that context.
On the insurance industry point, the position is that we negotiated a five-year moratorium on the use of genetic test results by the insurance companies. We are only part way through that period and we shall want to discuss with the industry, through the Government's genetics and insurance committee, and with other stakeholders how we formulate and agree a longer-term policy. I do not believe that any prior decisions have been made about that. It can be taken forward on a consultative basis with the industry.
On Biobank, we shall be able to proceed comfortably without crippling the MRC in its work. The resources are being provided to take forward Biobank.
The position on NICE is that areas of new procedures and testing in connection with genetics will be treated like any other new procedures in the NHS. If NICE is involved at an appropriate point in reviewing that area, we would need to ensure that the capacity was there to handle that as the need arises.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, raised workforce issues in primary care. There is a big education issue with GPs and their staff to bring everyone up to speed and to keep them up to speed in what is a fast-changing area.
On the specifics concerning counsellors, when the detail of the White Paper can be taken forward, we shall increase significantly the number of genetics

151
counsellors. Over the past year the department has provided start-up funding for 28 new posts and we are funding additional posts on the new MSc course in genetic counselling at Manchester and Cardiff. We are also funding a new scheme of structured training posts for people from a variety of healthcare backgrounds to train as genetics counsellors. We shall try to take the matter forward as fast as we can.
4.3 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, perhaps I may draw the Minister's attention—if that has not happened already—to the report of the Select Committee on Science and Technology of this House, on which I had the honour to serve when the committee inquired into human genetic databases, under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Oxburgh. One subject that the noble Lord, Lord Warner, has not mentioned in the Statement—it may be in the White Paper but I have not had time to study that—is the capacity of NHS ICT systems and computer technology systems to handle what will be huge volumes of immensely complicated data.
Does the Minister recognise that the Select Committee doubted the capacity of the health service to be able to commission and to manage the quantum leap in the provision of ICT services necessary if the potential of the genetics revolution is to be achieved, as the Statement has foreshadowed? Is there not a risk—I put it no higher than that—of the health service failing, as has happened in the past with NHS computer systems, to be able to match the discoveries of the scientists and their application by the doctors with the ability to process and to store the vast volumes of information that will be required? That could lead to the kind of disappointment that noble Lords on all sides of the House would want to do everything possible to avoid.
Lord Warner: My Lords, I hope I can be forgiven for saying that in my short time in office I have not read every Select Committee report, including the one to which the noble Lord has referred. It is on my list of homework to be undertaken as quickly as possible.
In terms of IT, the noble Lord will know that the Government have an ambitious strategy for improving IT in the NHS and have strengthened considerably its strategic and project management capability in that area. He is right to identify the risks. There are considerable risks in this area and they will need to be taken forward in taking forward the Government's IT strategy.
Lord Turnberg: My Lords, the report will be welcomed by the genetics community. I have to express an interest as chairman of the panel that advised the Government on the background to the report, so I would say that, wouldn't I? I hope that the wider public will welcome the report which will undoubtedly help to prepare the NHS to take advantage of the enormous advances in medical genetics that will come about. One of the keys to
152
success in this area will be more and better education for all doctors, especially GPs, for nurses, for genetic counsellors and for a range of other healthcare workers and above all for the public. Is my noble friend aware of how much the report's emphasis on education is welcomed by everyone involved?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I want to put on record the Government's appreciation for the work undertaken by the noble Lord in chairing the advisory panel that contributed so much to the White Paper and for his support in this area. He is right that we need to work hard to put in place the training, to give people working in the NHS the confidence to grapple with the new agenda and to feel competent and confident about handling the issues.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, will the Minister say how the Government intend to ensure that genetics knowledge is not concealed by those who seek commercially to exploit it from those who may further advance medical research by its use on the spurious grounds of seeking to protect intellectual property? That concern has been expressed at senior levels in the scientific community, not so much about practices in this country as in the United States. Will he and the Government engage in discussions internationally about ensuring the continuing availability of such genetics knowledge?
Lord Warner: My Lords, that is an issue, but it is important to remember that patents provide an incentive to innovation. Without them industry and other inventors would be less likely to undertake some significant risks involved in investment and research to bring new healthcare products to market. There is a balance to be struck. There are safeguards in the patent system—many noble Lords will know about that in the area of Crown use—which enable the NHS to use patented inventions for an appropriate fee if the patent holder is unwilling to agree a reasonable deal. There are safeguards in the provision. The noble Lord is right to identify that as an issue, but equally there are strong protections for the Government to enable knowledge to be used for the benefits of patients in the NHS.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, as a previous chairman of a local research ethics committee, I would like to make a serious point. The Statement began, presumably to warm the cockles of the hearts of some of the Members of Parliament sitting behind his right honourable friend in another place, with a highly political point about the NHS. It went on to be serious about what the Government are going to do, and I welcome everything that was said.
I suggest to the noble Lord, and through him his right honourable friends, that it seems important to concentrate, in trying to persuade the public—considering all the policy issues involved—to keep clear of controversial politics. This should be talked about as a scientific matter and as a matter of public policy in a way that everyone can accept and

153
understand. It should not be linked to what we now call political spinning. If that is attempted, it will put people off the whole notion.
The Government are entering a minefield of difficulty both in policy and in creating public understanding. I am sure that if they could avoid party politics, and stick to the science, they would get on much better. It is a serious point, as I experienced at local level some years ago.
Lord Warner: My Lords, I am always willing to act as a conduit between this House and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health. I shall of course do so in this case. It is worth bearing in mind that my noble friend was trying to make the point that people are often concerned about these issues and whether they will be left behind. It is important to stress that the characteristics of the NHS provide reassurances that there will not be a genetic underclass as we take forward this exciting but still difficult and complex area of development in healthcare and medicine.
Lord Soulsby of Swaffham Prior: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House will be glad of this positive government statement. It coincides with tile celebration of 50 years of DNA at the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute next week. It is a good time to make the announcement. It is a good announcement among the many negative comments that one hears 'about genetic research. I hope that the Statement will put to flight many of the people who speak against it. I hope that the Minister will adumbrate further statements on behalf of Her Majesty's Government for support of genetic research and the use of genetics in medical treatment and development.
Perhaps this is not the most appropriate question for the Minister, given the medical side. Is this an indication of the Government's general support of an intention to foster genetic research in general across medicine, agriculture and horticulture, where so many of us appreciate the great value of genetic knowledge and the application of this knowledge across the whole field of life on earth?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his support in this area. I do not want to stray into agriculture and horticulture, but noble Lords can assume from what we have said today that the Government fully support taking the benefits of genetic knowledge as far as possible in the interests of patients through medicine.

Water Bill [H.L.]
4.15 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report. In doing so, with the leave of the House, I draw attention to the Motion on the Order Paper, which we will take al the end of
154
the Report stage, that deals with recommitment of this Bill on one particular subject, namely that of fluoridation.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Lord Whitty.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 36:
Before Clause 28, insert the following new clause—
"General provisions with respect to water
In section 6(2)(b) of the Environment Act 1995 (c. 25), at end insert "in particular the efficient use of water by all abstractors"."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this group of three amendments, two of ours and one of the Government's, shows how we are struggling to find the most appropriate way of enabling the Environment Agency to have a firm empowerment to require the efficient use of water. The difference between the three amendments is small, but it will perhaps help the House if I explain. The Government may then be interested to consider the best way forward. The Government seem to prefer their wording, "including the efficient use". I am worried that unless we say "in particular the efficient use", we will have watered down the spirit of what we are all trying to achieve.
Earlier, in Committee and at Report stage, noble Lords time and again came back to the importance of ensuring that the Environment Agency has this power. For the benefit of those noble Lords who have not been able to attend, I remind the House that the National Water Demand Management Centre points out that world water availability is 6,918 cubic metres per capita in general in the world. In Europe it is 8,547 cubic metres, and in Ethiopia 1,771 cubic metres. In the UK it goes down to 1,219 cubic metres and in the Thames basin just 265 cubic metres. Efficient use of water is essential with household growth and population growth. There is an important need to get this small clause absolutely right in the Bill and enable the Environment Agency to have exactly the right power.
The government amendment could lead to some confusion. It talks of "including the efficient use of those resources". It would be better to say "in particular the efficient use of resources", to emphasise that the Environment Agency has an existing duty. "Including" might imply that the duty relating to the efficient use of resources was a new one. My Amendment No. 36 is probably weaker than what the Government have come back with in that it refers to all use of water and not just abstractors' use of water. Of this group, my preferred amendment now is Amendment No. 160A, but I welcome the views of other noble Lords, and of course the Government, on the best way to proceed. I beg to move.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I support the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer. Throughout our discussions in Committee, we have returned to the crucial factor of wanting to have efficient use and conservation of water throughout the

155
Bill. I shall not repeat what I said then except to encourage those who were unable to take part at Committee stage to support through these amendments a basic principle that we would all wish to see encompassed in the Bill.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I think that we are all agreed on what we want to achieve here. As tabled, Amendment No. 36 might have the effect of narrowing the scope of the existing general duty. It might narrow the scope of the duty to secure proper use of water resources to relate only to abstractors to the exclusion of other users.
On the face of it, Amendments Nos. 160 and 160A are not very different. My interpretation of the difference is almost the opposite of the noble Baroness's. We emphasise that the Environment Agency has always been able to impose efficiency conditions, and has done so. We do not wish to include in the Bill anything to suggest that such decisions were not covered by previous legislation, as we do not believe that to be the case. Therefore, the clarification of inserting the word "including" implies that the provision has always existed, whereas if the words "in particular" are used, the clause is more likely to be interpreted as suggesting a new power.
We are all concerned that we register the matter in the Bill. However, the Government feel that Amendment No. 160 does it better and that past decisions would be less subject to the—admittedly remote—possibility of challenge if the provision were included in our form rather than that proposed in Amendment No. 160A.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his helpful reply. I am concerned that we get the matter right. The success of the first amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, on Report strengthens the Bill. In the light of that fact, in particular if the Minister is satisfied that the wording that the Government propose is satisfactory, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness O'Cathain Baroness O'Cathain moved Amendment No. 37:
After Clause 30, insert the following new clause—
"APPEALS AGAINST ENFORCEMENT ORDERS
(1) Section 21 of the WIA (validity of enforcement orders) is amended as follows.
(2) At the end of paragraph (a) of subsection (1), there is omitted the word "or".
(3) After paragraph (b) of subsection (1), there is added—

"(c) that the making or confirmation of the order was based on an error of law or fact; or

(d) that in the circumstances of the case, the making or confirmation of the order was not reasonable."

(4) For subsection (2) there is substituted—
"(2) On any such application, the High Court may, if satisfied that any of the grounds set out in subsection (1) above are proved—
156

(a) quash the order or any provision of the order; or

(b) vary the whole of the order, or any part of the order whether the application relates to that part of the order or not.""

The noble Baroness said: My Lords. Amendment No. 37 relates to enforcement orders. Although there is a right of appeal against competition related decisions made by Ofwat, there is no right of appeal against other enforcement decisions made by Ofwat and the Secretary of State. I believe that that needs to be rectified.
The amendment creates a right of appeal against enforcement decisions not related to competition that are made by Ofwat and the Secretary of State. That is part of a package of amendments on appeals. They aim to ensure that there are rights of appeal on the merits of the regulator's decisions to an independent person—possibly a member of the court of arbitrators—taking into account that there are already such rights in relation to the granting of abstraction licences and decisions on competition issues.
The amendment and other provisions replace our previous "jumbo" appeals amendment that we dealt with in Grand Committee. It was somewhat complex and caused confusion. I hope that this amendment clarifies the situation. Instead, specific amendments are proposed to provisions where regulatory decisions affect existing rights or are punitive. I beg to move.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, I support the amendment. As the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, said, it is a substitute, as was another amendment we debated previously. Another amendment is yet to come in relation to the "jumbo" clause, as she put it. This approach is a major improvement.
Under Clause 30, significant powers are vested in the Environment Agency to deal with impounding or abstracting without a licence. Those powers are based on the subjective view of the agency. Clause 30 contains the words,
"where it appears to the Agency"—
—that there is a breach.
There is a double subjectivity. Where it appears to the agency that a company has not complied with a condition, an enforcement notice may be served. The condition is that,
"it appears that a breach … is causing or likely to cause significant damage".
There is a double subjective basis on which the Environment Agency can serve enforcement notices.
Non-compliance with an enforcement notice incurs potentially heavy sanctions. They are set out on page 35 of the Bill at proposed Section 25C: on summary conviction there is a fine of up to £20,000; on conviction there is an unlimited fine. One expects that a public authority such as the Environment Agency will act only from the highest motives. But let us suppose that the agency's exercise of a power is questionable. Can it be questioned at all? Under Section 21 of the Water Industry Act 1991, the only possible remedy that I can see for a company aggrieved by an enforcement notice is either unlawfulness or

157
failure of the agency to comply with statutory procedures. However, as the power is expressed in very subjective terms, it is difficult, if not impossible, for any aggrieved company to cross the huge hurdle of demonstrating that the Environment Agency has acted unlawfully.
The amendment would add two grounds: error of law or fact, and unreasonable use of power. The latter can be argued and might restrain any possible excessive use of power by the Environment Agency. We should expect the agency normally to comply with proper procedures and law, to act in the public interest and to behave in an upright way. But some official, sometime, might behave otherwise, and there should be a better remedy or appeal, as the noble Baroness suggested.
Baroness Byford: My name is attached to this amendment. I urge the Government to consider it, as it is very reasonable. My noble friend has gone to much trouble to ensure that it does what she wishes it to do. The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, rightly said that it gives us a chance to see where there is an error of law or fact, and whether the agency is using unreasonable power. I shall not add anything, as the amendment speaks for itself. I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, for his support. He does not always agree with amendments; therefore, on this occasion I am doubly grateful to him for his support.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I, too, can be brief, as the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, has said what needs to be expressed. We have tried to amend the Bill at other points to ensure that the agency is accountable in various ways. This amendment also seeks to ensure that.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, there has been a slight misapprehension by my noble friend Lord Borrie and those who spoke after him. The amendment, which would insert a new clause after Clause 30, has no impact on the Environment Agency. It deals with appeals against Ofwat—in the regulatory sense under the Water Industry Act—not the powers of the Environment Agency, which appear later in the Bill.
The first part of the amendment is not necessary, and the second part is potentially dangerous. The first part adds nothing to the current provisions. The enforcement authority is already required to consult on the terms of its order. It is then required to give notice of its decision. An undertaker therefore has an opportunity to point out any error of law. If the regulator fails to take note of those representations, there are grounds for legal challenge. A company can question an enforcement order if it feels that it is unreasonable. Again, existing provisions give Ofwat a discretion not to issue an order if the breach is trivial or if the company has given an undertaking to Ofwat to remedy that breach. There are therefore already extensive, transparent safeguards to protect against arbitrary, unreasonable action by the regulator.
It is probably the second part of the amendment to which I object more strongly. It would allow the High
158
Court to vary an enforcement order if a complaint was upheld. That would include parts of the order which had not been the subject of the company's application. That would not be appropriate. The court already has powers to wholly or partly quash an order because it is unlawful; it does not need any additional powers for that. But it would be unusual to ask the court to substitute its own interpretation of what are often very technical issues involved in any alleged contravention, especially if those issues had not been the subject of the application in the first place. Therefore, it is giving too wide powers to the court. The powers that the court needs it already has. With that in mind, I hope that the amendment will not be pursued.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, whereas I am very grateful to all who took part in the debate on this amendment, I am very disappointed by the Minister's response. The Minister deliberately said that in the first part of the amendment—I take it that he is referring to subsection (3)—the company, the undertaker, or whatever, has grounds for legal challenge. That would be a costly and difficult course for water companies. I think that the appeals mechanism would be better; that is, appealing to an independent person, possibly a member of the court of arbitration. I do not understand why the Government have taken this attitude.
In addition, we are not being dealt with fairly as regards appeals which are not related to competition. Why should Ofwat, being the mouthpiece of the Secretary of State, not be allowed to appeal on issues not related to competition? With the support that I have received from around the House, in this instance I should like to test the opinion of the House.
4.32 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 37) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 123; Not-Contents, 120.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Caithness, E.

Alderdice, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Ampthill, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Arran, E.

Cavendish of Furness, L

Ashcroft, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Avebury, L.

Coe, L.

Barker, B.

Colwyn, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Denham, L.

Biffen, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Blatch, B.

Elles, B.

Bradshaw, L.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Elton, L.

Bridges, L.

Ferrers, E.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Finlay of Llandaff, B.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Gardner of Parkes. B.

Burnham, L.

Geddes, L.

Buscombe, B.

Glenarthur, L.

Byford, B.

Glentoran, L.

159

Goodhart, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Goschen, V.

Peel, E.

Gray of Contin, L.

Perry of Southwark, B.

Hamwee, B.

Perry of Walton, L.

Hanham, B.

Plumb, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Rawlings, B.

Higgins, L.

Razzall, L.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Redesdale, L.

Hooson, L.

Renton, L.

Howe, E.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Rogan, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Roll of Ipsden, L.

Kirkham, L.

Roper, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Russell, E.

Laird, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Lindsay, E.

Sandberg, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Sandwich, E.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Lyell, L.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Selborne, E.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Selsdon, L.

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

McNally, L.

Sheppard of Didgemere, L.

maddock, B.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Mar, C.

Skelmersdale, L

Mar and Kellie, E.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Marlesford, L.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

Michie of Gallanach, B.

Strange, B.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Swinfen, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Montrose, D.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Tordoff, L.

Newby, L.

Trumpington, B.

Noakes, B.

Ullswater, V.

Northesk, E.

Vivian, L.

Northover, B.

Waddington, L.

O'Cathain, B.[Teller]

Wakeham, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Walmsley,.B.

Palmer, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Elder, L.

Ahmed, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Alli, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Amos, B.

Falconer of Thoroton, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Andrews, B.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Barnett, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Filkin, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Billingham, B.

Gale, B.

Blackstone, B.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Golding, B.

Brennan, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Brookman, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Carter, L.

Harrison, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Haskel, L.[Teller]

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Hayman, B.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B. [Teller]

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Craig of Radley, L.

Howarth of Breckland, B.

Crawley.B.

Howells of St. Davids, B,

David, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Dixon, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L.

Donoughue, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Dubs, L.

Jeger, B.

160

Jones, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Jordan, L.

Radice, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Layard, L.

Rea, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Lipsey, L.

Richard, L.

Lockwood, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Sheldon, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Simon, V.

Mclntosh of Haringey, L.

Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

Mclntosh of Hudnall, B.

Smith of Leigh, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Marsh, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Tumberg, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Mishcon, L.

Uddin, B.

Mitchell, L.

Varley, L.

Morgan, L.

Wamer, L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Nicol, B.

Weatherill, L.

Orme, L.

Whitaker, B.

Ouseley, L.

Whitty, L.

Parekh, L.

Wilkins, B.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Paul, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord President of the Council)

Peston, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the affiematitve, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.44 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 38:
Before Schedule 1, insert the following new schedule—

SCHEDULE Al DEFINITIONS
1 The following definitions shall be adopted for the purpose of this Act and shall supersede all previous definitions in the Environment Act 1995 (c. 25), the Water Resources Act 1991 (c. 57) and the Water Industry Act 1991 (c. 56)—
"surface water" means inland waters, except groundwater; transitional waters and coastal waters, except in respect of chemical status for which it shall also include territorial waters;
"groundwater" means all water which is below the surface of the ground in the saturation zone and in direct contact with the ground or subsoil;
"inland water" means all standing or flowing water on the surface of the land, and all groundwater on the landward side of the baseline from which the breadth of territorial waters is measured;
"river" means a body of inland water flowing for the most part on the surface of the land but which may flow underground for part of its course;
"lake" means a body of standing inland surface water;
"transitional waters" are bodies of surface water in the vicinity of river mouths which are partly saline in character as a result of their proximity to coastal waters but which are substantially influenced by freshwater flows;
"coastal water" means surface water on the landward side of a line, every point of which is at a distance of one nautical mile on the seaward side from the nearest point of the baseline from which the breadth of territorial waters is measured, extending where appropriate up to the outer limit of transitional waters;

161
"artificial water body" means a body of surface water created by human activity;
"heavily modified water body" means a body of surface water which as a result of physical alterations by human activity is substantially changed in character, as designated by the member State in accordance with the provisions of Annex II of the Water Framework Directive;
"body of surface water" means a discrete and significant element of surface water such as a lake, a reservoir, a stream, river or canal, part of a stream, river or canal, a transitional water or a stretch of coastal water;
"aquifer" means a subsurface layer or layers of rock or other geological strata of sufficient porosity and permeability to allow either a significant flow of groundwater or the abstraction of significant quantities of groundwater;
"body of groundwater" means a distinct volume of groundwater with an aquifer or aquifers;
"river basin" means the area of land from which all surface run-off flows through a sequence of streams, rivers and, possibly, lakes into the sea at a single river mouth, estuary or delta;
"sub-basin" means the area of land from which all surface run-off flows through a series of streams, rivers and, possibly, lakes to a particular point in a water course (normally a lake or a river confluence);
"river basin district" means the area of land and sea, made up of one or more neighbouring river basins together with their associated groundwaters and coastal waters, which is identified under Article 3(1) of the Water Framework Directive as the main unit for management of river basins;
"competent authority" means an authority or authorities identified under Article 3(2) or 3(3) of the Water Framework Directive;
"surface water status" is the general expression of the status of a body of surface water, determined by the poorer of its ecological status and its chemical status;
"good surface water status" means the status achieved by a surface water body when both its ecalogical status and its chemical status are at least 'good';
"groundwater status" is the general expression of the status of a body of groundwater, determined by the poorer of its quantitative status and its chemical status;
"good groundwater status" means the stat as achieved by a groundwater body when both its quantitative status and its chemical status are at least 'good';
"ecological status" is an expression of the quality of the structure and functioning of aquatic ecosystems associated with surface waters, classified in accordance with Annex V of the Water Framework Directive;
"good ecological status" is the status of a body of surface water, so classified in accordance with Annex V of the Water Framework Directive;
"good ecological potential" is the status of a heavily modified or an artificial body of water, so classified in accordance with the relevant provisions of Annex V of the Water Framework Directive;
"good surface water chemical status" means the chemical status required to meet the environmental objectives for surface waters established in Article 4( I )(a) of the Water Framework Directive, that is the chemical status achieved by a body of surface water in which concentrations of pollutants do not exceed the environmental quality standards established in Annex IX and under Article 16(7) of the Water Framework Directive, and under other relevant European Community legislation setting environmental quality standards at a Community level;
162
"good groundwater chemical status" is the chemical status of a body of groundwater which meets all the conditions set out in table 2.3.2 of Annex V of the Water Framework Directive;
"quantitative status" is an expression of the degree to which a body of groundwater is affected by direct and indirect abstractions;
"available groundwater resource" means the long-term annual rate of overall recharge of the body of groundwater less the long-term annual rate of flow required to achieve the ecological quality objectives for associated surface waters specified under Article 4 of the Water Framework Directive, to avoid any significant diminution in the ecological status of such waters and to avoid any significant damage to associated terrestrial ecosystems;
"good quantitative status" is the status defined in table 2.1.2 of Annex V of the Water Framework Directive;
"hazardous substances" means substances or groups that are toxic, persistent and liable to bio-accumulate, and other substances or groups of substances which give rise to an equivalent level of concern;
"priority substances" means substances or groups of substances identified in accordance with Article 16(2) and listed in Annex X of the Water Framework Directive. Among these substances there are 'priority hazardous substances' which means substances indentified in accordance with Article 16(3) and (6) of the Water Framework Directive for which measures have to be taken in accordance with Article 16(1) and (8) of the Water Framework Directive;
"pollutant" means any substance liable to cause pollution, in particular those listed in Annex VIII of the Water Framework Directive;
"direct discharge to groundwater" means discharge of pollutants into groundwater without percolation throughout the soil or subsoil;
"pollution" means the direct or indirect introduction, as a result of human activity, of substances or heat into the air, water or land which may be harmful to human health or the quality of aquatic ecosystems or terrestrial ecosystems directly depending on aquatic ecosystems, which result in damage to material property, or which impair or interfere with amenities and other legitimate uses of the environment;
"environmental objectives" means the objectives set out in Article 4 of the Water Framework Directive;
"environmental quality standard" means the concentration of a particular pollutant or groups of pollutants in water, sediment or biota which should not be exceeded in order to protect human health and the environment;
"combined approach" means the control of discharges and emissions into surface waters according to the approach set out in Article 10 of the Water Framework Directive;
"water intended for human consumption" has the same meaning as under Directive 80/778/EEC of the European Parliament and of the Council, as amended by Directive 98/83/EC;
"water services" means all services which provide, for households, public institutions or any economic activity—

(a) abstraction, impoundment, storage, treatment and distribution of surface water or groundwater;

(b) waste-water collection and treatment facilities which subsequently discharge into surface water.

"water use" means water services together with any other activity identified under Article 5 of the Water Framework Directive. This concept applies for the

163
purposes of Article 1 and of the economic analysis carried out according to Article 5 and Annex III, point (b) of the Water Framework Directive;
"emission limit values", subject to paragraph 2 to 4, means the mass, expressed in terms of certain specified parameters, concentration or level of an emission (or both), which may not be exceeded during any one or more periods of time;
"emission controls", subject to paragraph 5, are controls requiring a specific emission limitation, for instance an emission limit value, or otherwise specifying limits or conditions on the effects, nature of other characteristics of an emission or operating conditions which affect emissions.
2 Emission limit values may also be laid down for certain groups, families or categories of substances, in particular those identified under Article 16 of the Water Framework Directive.
3 The emission limit values for substances shall normally apply at the point where the emissions leave the installation, dilution being disregarded when determining them.
4 With regard to indirect releases into water, the effect of a waste-water treatment plant may be taken into account when determining the emission limit values of the installations involved, provided that an equivalent level is guaranteed for protection of the environment as a whole and provided that this does not lead to higher levels of pollution in the environment.
5 Use of the term "emission control" in this Act in respect of the provisions of any other European Parliament and Council Directive other than the Water Framework Directive shall not be held as reinterpreting those provisions in any respect."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment places in the Bill definitions that the Water Framework Directive, which must be enacted in international law by the end of the year, sets out as the definitions that should be used in discussing water issues.
I believe that the Government feel that it is acceptable to have different definitions within the water world, but that will simply lead to confusion and difficulty. I have not been convinced of a good reason why we should continue without firm definitions that look to the future. I quote from New Civil Engineer magazine of 22nd May—not a magazine known for being at all political, but which is entirely practical:
"It may seem as if there is plenty of time to implement the European Water Framework Directive (WFD), as every EU country has until 2015 to comply. But time is actually quite tight when the philosophy behind water supply and management is to be radically transformed".
The first thing in a tight time-scale is that people need to know exactly what they are talking about. By adopting my amendment the definitions will make life much easier for all concerned and avoid confusion. I hope that the Government will be minded to be positive about setting down a clear guideline as to what means what and that they will not leave the agencies and the public in a state of confusion when dealing with water issues. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, this is a substantial amendment which aims to translate the terms of the Water Framework Directive into the Bill. We have had this discussion on several occasions during debates on the Bill, in which we have indicated that we intend to transpose the Water Framework Directive in due course following the consultations we are engaged in.
164
For those purposes the definitions in the directive will be appropriate. But by incorporating those definitions in the Bill they alter the existing definitions in the Bill and earlier legislation in a way that can be confusing.
For example, the definition of groundwater in the directive is different and narrower than that in the Water Resources Act 1991. Incorporating it into that Act would therefore limit the ability of the agency to control current and known pollution. In order to control pollution of a saturated zone—for example, as a result of indirect, diffuse discharges—it is necessary for controlled waters to include water in transit as it percolates from the surface through the unsaturated zone; that is, to include all groundwater in underground strata, whereas this definition does not. It is therefore important that for the purposes of the Water Industry Act 1991 the existing definition stands.
Another example is "river", which we have also debated in passing. If we substitute the Water Framework Directive definition of "river", the current distinction between main and non-main rivers could be compromised. That would give rise to considerable confusion in domestic legislation; in particular, in relation to flood defence. The Water Resources Act defines "main river", and that Act generally sets out the permissive powers available to the Environment Agency to undertake work on such rivers. As noble Lords will know, all other watercourses are the responsibility of local authorities and internal drainage boards under the Land Drainage Act 1991, in which they are referred to as "non-main rivers".
If we no longer had that distinction then we would need an alternative legal mechanism to show which watercourses were the responsibility of the agency, and which were for local authority internal drainage boards. The effect of transposing the directive prematurely into the Bill would be to introduce confusion in the previous definitions.
Similar problems arise more directly in relation to water services. Throughout the Water Industry Act, the drafting and structure of the legislation is based on the distinction between sewerage services and the supply of water. The word "water" is used only in the context of the provision of fresh water. The framework directive definition of water services is different in that it covers both functions.
In those three respects and, I believe, some others, it would obviously cause considerable confusion to introduce the water framework definitions into this Bill to apply retrospectively to earlier legislation. Of course, we will need to transpose the directive and, as we have explained, we intend to do so. Where the powers are not already in place, the directive powers will be transposed, reflecting the framework directive definitions. To do so in this Bill would confuse the issue.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, what time scale are the Government considering to transpose those parts that will need to be redefined, given that the framework is to take effect by the end of the year? Will the transposition start then? I can

165
understand some of the technical reasons that the noble Lord has given me, but he has just illuminated my point that there will be a good deal of confusion between those who are working to the water framework directive definitions and those who are working to historic English definitions.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as we have explained at earlier stages, we are involved already in the consultation on the transposition of the directive. It is intended that the directive will be transposed before the end of the year. Obviously, some parts of it will come into play later down the line, and the full effect does not come until 2015.
The noble Baroness is right in the sense that there will be new definitions relating to new duties and responsibilities, which would not have existed before we transposed the directive. However, the old definitions will continue to apply in relation to the powers and duties that have existed through various stages of water legislation. To alter them in this context would distort the current understanding of those definitions shared by the water industry and everyone else.
The noble Baroness will no doubt argue for the consolidation of everything into one big Bill. In this Bill, as with other legislation, the definitions involved relate to the powers in this Bill and not to some future piece of legislation, however we enact it. In the case of the Water Framework Directive, we will be enacting it in a very specific piece of transposition under the European Communities Act 1972.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. However, it is a great shame that the Government have not got their act together sufficiently to enable this sort of issue to be cleared up at this stage. I look forward to debating the consolidation issue, under the amendment to be moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford.
I have listened carefully to the Minister. I propose to take further soundings from the water industry and environmental bodies. I may well return to the issue at Third Reading. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 37, line 35, at beginning insert "regional"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 40 and 41.
Having studied the Hansard report covering this area of debate in Committee, I have concluded that the main reason for our concern is that the Bill limits the official committees of the Consumer Council to regional committees. Our amendment would free the logjam and allow flexibility where it is necessary, so that the council may operate more effectively. We feel that sound mechanisms are needed to control the
166
licensed water suppliers. As it stands, the Bill seems to place all the burden on water undertakers and all the privileges with water suppliers.
This is as good a point as any at which to seek further clarification of the Government's intentions. What really lies behind the creation of licensed water suppliers? In our debate on 10th April, the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, stated:
"At present, undertakers have a duty to supply customers outside their area for domestic purposes but not for non-domestic purposes. We have sought to simplify the situation and provide clarity by removing this distinction".
She went on to explain that,
"undertakers will compete only outside their areas through their associated companies and not directly".—[Official Report. 10/4/03; col. GC82.]
Will the Minister confirm that associated companies may not be water undertakers? If so, why is that so? Why have the Government not opened the water market to competition between water undertakers? If licensed water suppliers can demand access to an undertaker's pipework, why should not another undertaker? What do the Government imagine a licensed water supplier will look like? With a potential market of some 2,000 customers throughout the country, will he have an office in a tower block with a telephone line? How will the supplier operate? Will he operate regionally?
I should be grateful for further clarification on some further questions. Will it be possible for there to be 2,000 licensed water suppliers—each of the largest companies—which form a water supplier subsidiary to supply itself, for example? That is a possibility. Will it be allowable for such a subsidiary in a loss to claim tax relief?
Those are very specific questions, so if the Minister needs a longer period in which to consider them, I am happy that he does so. However, we do need greater clarification. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Baroness raised some wider questions, but the amendments have two effects. First, they would allow the Consumer Council for Water to establish non-regional committees. We accept that it is necessary for the council to decide its own organisational structure and, in Schedule 2(15), that power can be used to consider licensee issues generally. There is no limit on how the council can use the power.
The second aim of the amendment is to allow the council to allocate licensed water suppliers to any regional or non-regional committee. We discussed the matter in Committee, and I agreed to investigate the role of the council in relation to licensed water suppliers. We have tabled government Amendment No. 42, which makes it clear that the council will have the same powers for licensed water suppliers as it has for undertakers. The amendment aims to confirm that the customers of licensed water suppliers can also be looked after by regional committees. The second point is therefore taken care of by government Amendment No. 42, although some water suppliers will not necessarily be easily allocatable region by region.

167
We shall discuss the issue of associated companies at a later stage. It is a little complicated. Perhaps I may reserve that until later unless the noble Baroness wishes to press me now.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I am grateful for that response, and I shall be telling the noble Lord shortly that I am grateful for government Amendment No. 42. This can be a difficulty when one tables amendments between Committee and Report stages—clearly the Government have already responded to them in this case. I accept the Minister's comments on paragraph (b) of Amendment No. 41. I am happy for him to give me further detail between now and Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 40 and 41 not moved.]
5 p.m.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 38, line 10, leave out "(unless the context otherwise requires)"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 42, 1 wish to speak also to the amendments with which it is grouped.
In Committee we said that we would consider extending the council's remit to monitoring licensed water suppliers, as I have just said. The government amendments in the group I am discussing take forward that commitment. We have come to the conclusion that there will be a need for the council to monitor licensed water suppliers and to look after the interests of their customers. These amendments will enable the council to investigate complaints concerning licensed water suppliers, obtain information on them and investigate the interests of their customers.
Given that we all have the same objective, I hope that noble Lords will give a favourable wind to this group of amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. He was well aware of our disquiet at the way in which the associated companies were being dealt with. We are dealing now with a whole group of amendments. I therefore wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 75 and 77 which stand in my name. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. He has kindly added his name to Amendment No. 77, for which I am grateful. Amendment No. 75 has been overtaken by other government amendments. I am grateful for that. Government Amendment No. 94 seeks to insert the words "in any other case". Will the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, explain the reason for that?
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, we on these Benches also welcome the Government's move in the direction the Minister mentioned. Will he clarify whether my Amendment No. 88, which is included in the group we are discussing, is one that the
168
Government are minded to accept? If not, will the Minister say why not? I, too, welcome the group of amendments.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I should like to take away the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, as it contains a definition which I do not think entirely relates to our definition of "relevant company". I shall come back to the noble Baroness on that matter.
Government Amendment No. 94 seeks to insert the words "in any other case" in order to cover licensees and undertakers. It seeks to clarify that the measure extends to everyone who is covered by the remit of the council.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 38, line 15, at end insert—
"(13) The Council shall exercise and perform its powers and duties so as to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to ensure that the consumer council for water has a sustainability duty. We believe that it should have that duty. If it does not, we are concerned that it will not be able to justify spending time on sustainability issues. This is an important issue and one that rightly recognises the fact that the consumer interest extends far beyond just the price of water to issues such as the state of the water environment, rivers, wetlands and coastal waters. Indeed, surveys show that consumers rank concern about the environment high among their priorities. For those reasons I hope that the Government are now minded to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I wish to place on the record the fact that in principle we on these Benches support the amendment.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, for their comments. We should like to take the issue away and consider it between now and Third Reading.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. I hope that means that the Government will consider the amendment favourably. In the light of that reply, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 38, line 39, at end insert—
"( ) Without prejudice to subsections (2) to (4) above, before—

(a) making a modification to the conditions of an appointment pursuant to section 13 of this Act;

(b) making a reference to the Competition Commission pursuant to section 14 of this Act;

169

(c) giving any approval pursuant to section 143(6) of this Act;

(d) making any decision which falls within paragraph (a), (b) or (e) of section 195A of this Act; or

(e) making any proposal to a relevant undertaker limiting its charges for the supply of water, the provision of sewerage services or the reception, treatment or disposal of trade effluent,

the Authority, the Secretary of State or the Assembly, as the case may be, shall consult the Council, and shall take into account any views expressed by the Council."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to ensure that the consumer voice is heard and that the consumer interest is balanced against other interests. It will be the purpose of the council to identify and represent consumers' concerns and it is therefore essential that decisions that affect consumers should be the subject of consultation with the council. At present consultation with the consumer body, Water Voice, is a matter of good practice. It is logical and appropriate that with the setting up of the council such good practice should be enshrined in legislation on the face of the Bill.
I believe that in Grand Committee the Minister was still of a mind that such an amendment was not necessary because there would be a memorandum of understanding. I hope that the Government will have reconsidered the matter and are minded to include it on the face of the Bill as it would greatly strengthen the standing of the consumer council for water with consumers and its power. I beg to move.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I wish to put on record the general support of these Beeches for the amendment.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am sure that both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord will be pleased that we are prepared to take the matter away and reconsider it. We may prefer to look at a general requirement to consult where appropriate rather than specifying particular circumstances which may on reflection not keep up to date with regulatory developments. But I do not think that there is a drop of water between us and I am quite sure that we shall be able to resolve the matter at Third Reading.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, a general power sounds most promising. I look forward to seeing the Government's proposition. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 2 [The Consumer Council for Water]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 124, leave out lines 9 to 12 and insert "a representative of each of the four groups listed in section 27C."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it would be nice if the Government's gramophone needle became stuck in the groove as regards this amendment but I suspect that it will not work quite like that.
In moving Amendment No. 45 I should say that we understand the way in which modern society seeks to take into account people who suffer from any kind of
170
disability or disadvantage whenever it is necessary to do so. However, we believe that the specific reference to the desirability of including a disabled person or someone who has experience of the needs of disabled persons among the membership of the council is not necessary. The Bill states:
"The council shall consist of—

(a) a chairman appointed by the Secretary of State;

(b) one other member appointed by the Assembly; and

(c) such other members as may be appointed by the Secretary of State".

That seems to me to be such an open and inclusive method of appointing the membership that I do not see the need for further description. Therefore, the amendment seeks to delete lines 9 to 12 on page 124 and insert the words included in the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, we come back to the problem of lists here. I understand the intention behind the amendment but it is not necessary as it is implicit that for a member of the council to be effective he or she must have regard to the interests of all the groups listed in new Section 27C, to which the amendment refers. That is central to the mainstream functions of the council. Those of pensionable age or on low incomes or those in rural areas all share general concerns about the supply and quality of water. On the other hand, disabled groups have particular needs which are unique to them. That is why the disabled groups are listed in terms of membership, but other vulnerable groups or potential interest groups that might have a claim to representation on the council are not. The main point of the council is to have members who pay attention to the needs of all consumers, including the vulnerable groups referred to in Clause 27. That is why we need to provide special understandings of the interests of the disabled or chronically ill when we make appointments. There is a difference between them and other vulnerable people. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will not pursue his amendment.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I cannot say that I am happy about the Minister's response. We have faced each other across these Dispatch Boxes from time to time on other Bills, and I am bound to say by observation that the Government argue the case whichever way they please, depending on the circumstances and the Bill. There is no consistent track record on the matter. That said, I do not know that the issue is fundamental. I am sorry that the Minister does not feel that he can act on the issue by exercising his power properly, without needing the added authority of a specific description, but I am not prepared to die for that cause. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 36 [Conditions relating to costs of water regulation]:
Baroness O'Cathain Baroness O'Cathain moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 39, line 27, at beginning insert "Subject to subsection (2A) below,"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment is grouped with Amendments Nos. 47 to 49. I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 46 and 48 together.
As we know, the Bill establishes a new consumer council for water and a mechanism by which companies must pay its expenses, but no limit is placed on the council's costs. The amendment tries to rectify that. Let us bear in mind that the costs of Ofwat are currently constrained by a condition in the company's licences. However, if the amendment were made, the payments that companies were required to pay to the council would be able to increase only in proportion to the increase in prices that they were able to charge.
The amendments are simple. They would preclude the consumer council going mad—Well, not going mad, but spending an enormous amount of money on research into areas where it was not necessarily essential, and putting all the costs on the water companies. There has to be some constraint. One cannot have a body such as a consumer council without constraints, particularly if the costs are borne by, in this case, the water companies. I beg to move.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, in supporting my noble friend on the amendments, I again refer to the debates on them in Grand Committee. The Minister was very clear that it would be explicit that water licensees would share the expenses. His response specifically was:
"Schedule 4 … provides for a water supply licence to require payments to the Secretary of State of such amounts as may be determined, which could fairly include this".
He went on to point out that:
"In one sense, Clause 36 provides a transitional power to allow undertakers' existing conditions of employment to be modified".—[Official Report, 3/4/03; col. GC 197.]
Our point is that it should be mandatory for the licensed water suppliers to pay their fair share of the costs of regulating the water industry.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 46 and 48, which are in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, are intended to tie the fees paid by each undertaker to each year's price limit in the periodic review. I understand that she wishes to be assured that regulatory bodies should not become a financial burden on the companies that they regulate, but the safeguards to prevent that are already in place. Undertakers' conditions of appointment already contain a cap on the level of fees payable, and Ofwat currently levies less than it is entitled to.
As regards the consumer council, paragraph 10 of Schedule 2 gives the Secretary of State the power to decide how much money the council needs to run its operations. The Secretary of State therefore has the power to prevent the consumer council from going mad, as the noble Baroness said and then withdrew the remark. We therefore rely on—it is certainly in the interests of the Government to ensure it—the consumer council to be a cost-effective body and not one that runs away with the industry's money.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, would that mean that the water companies could liaise with the Secretary of State and have discussions about the costs of the council? If they felt that the council's plans were going into the stratosphere and were far too expensive, and that the costs of running the council were far too expensive and bearing down on them, could they have an appeal to the Secretary of State?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Baroness mentions a formal appeal. I am not sure that that is provided in legislation. It certainly must be the case that the water companies would have the right to say to the Secretary of State, "Look, this consumer council is behaving extremely irresponsibly with money that it raises from us. Can you do something about it?", and the Secretary of State would have the power to do something about it. The problem with the amendment is that it limits the inflation of the costs to the fees in any given year. whereas the Secretary of State would take a view over a number of years and over the general strategy of the consumer council, rather than linking it to the regulated price.
The amendment has the potential to have a perverse effect, as in one sense it would give Ofwat an incentive to allow a higher price rise if it felt that that was the only way to escalate its own costs. That is probably a remote possibility. Nevertheless, one has to bear it in mind if too mechanistic a relationship is made between the price rise and the cost of the council.
Amendments Nos. 47 and 49 are designed to ensure that water licensees share the expenses of the consumer council. We would certainly expect them to do so. Schedule 4, to which the noble Lord referred, would allow a licence to require that such payments shall be made. He wishes to make that mandatory, which relates to that schedule rather than to Clause 36. The clause is a transitional power. Its purpose is to enable the regulator to change undertakers' conditions of appointment so that they would continue to pay for the consumer council, which will be set up in April 2005.
We would not expect the regulator to grant licences to new suppliers until after April 2005 anyway, so the transitional power will not be needed for licensees. Instead, the power beyond that point in Schedule 4 would be the appropriate one. Although I would resist the amendments to that schedule, it is probably where any discussion of mandatory provisions rather than those on power for a licence to require should appropriately be discussed.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I cannot say that I am ecstatic about the Minister's response, but he does not expect me to be. Would it be feasible for him to have another look at the matter? There is some merit in making a cap related to the price increase.
My experience of a lot of industries—not water companies, I hasten to add—is that if one gives a marketing body or department a free rein, the money goes so rapidly that one cannot understand where it has gone to. The consumer councils are a little like

173
marketing bodies. They are full of people who want to do research and ensure that they get the best possible information. In some cases, they overdo it. I fear a situation in which the water companies will be placed under severe financial constraints if there is no cap related to the price. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment, but in doing so I ask the Minister to reconsider it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 47 to 49 not moved.]
Clause 38 [Objectives and duties under WIA]:
Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 50:
Page 43, line 8, at end insert—
"( ) any interests of consumers in relatior to the possible effects of effective competition over an extended period of up to twelve years,"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to my Amendment No. 51 and to Amendment No. 53. The Government have tabled two amendments on this matter, Amendments Nos. 52 and 55. I am grateful to the Minister for coming back with amendments which I believe have to some extent met some of our concerns.
I shall speak to Amendment No. 50 first. In the runup to the Bill, we received information and opinions from a variety of sources. It has been extremely difficult to determine what a licensed water supplier will be, how big, how competitive and how effective. Nevertheless, it seems fairly obvious that, by taking away the 2,000 largest customers from the water undertakers, there is a strong possibility that the latter will be less profitable. If that is so, there is also a possibility that it may be necessary for prices to the remaining customers to rise in order to protect water supplies. The regulator would have little room for manoeuvre and the 2, D00 industrial and commercial customers would benefit at the expense of everyone else—a point about which I believe all noble Lords would be concerned.
A further aspect concerns us. The figures for rainfall, county by county, used in an article in the Daily Telegraph gardening supplement at the end of May make it clear that sizeable areas of England are short of water. In several cases those areas are also under huge development pressure. As matters stand, new water supplies, whether piped or delivered by some other means, will be charged for across all users.
If the largest customers are supplied even more cheaply than now, from another source Than of now, they will not be available to pay a share of the new supply charges from the water undertakers. This must surely result in higher charges than would otherwise be the case for the rest.
Amendment No. 51 was debated in Committee. The noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, replied for the Government and explained that if it were to be accepted the effect would be to remove the ban on licensed water suppliers operating in the same area as an associated water undertaker. Apparently, this would be anticompetitive in that the water undertaker might,
"find ways of encouraging customers to transfer to its associates in order to remove them from their regulated activities and the price control mechanism".
On reflection, we find this an astounding statement and one which needs to be explored more thoroughly. Water undertakers will, apparently, be allowed to form subsidiaries which may apply for and be granted a licence to supply water, but only in another water undertaker's area.
Only the largest of 2,000 or so customers will qualify for transfer to a licensed water supplier. They are, however, apparently so naive that the effect of allowing an associated water supplier to operate in the same area as its parent water undertaker will be to encourage the undertaker to use means to persuade them to transfer. It would seem that the Government are acting more out of animus against the water undertakers than out of a true desire to open up the water industry to competition. At this point, the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, said:
"This could be done only at the expense of the customers remaining with the regulated business".—[Official Report, 8/4/03; col. 13.]
From this short exchange it would appear that the introduction of licensed water suppliers will indeed be bad news for those customers, including domestic consumers, who will not be eligible to move from a water undertaker to a licensed water supplier. I am sure that this is not what is intended and I should be glad if the Minister would clarify the position and explain in different terms why a licensed water supplier may not operate in the same area as its parent or associated water undertaker.
I turn to Amendment No. 53, which I moved in Grand Committee. Subsequently, the Government have kindly come up with Amendment No. 52 which, on reflection, I believe deals with the concerns expressed in our amendment. Therefore, I shall not set out in detail the reasons why we promoted Amendment No. 53.
In moving Amendment No. 50, 1 have spoken to Amendment No. 51 and I commend our Amendment No. 53, which I believe we shall withdraw in the light of Amendment No. 52 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. I beg to move.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, I am interested in the fact that the noble Baroness is to withdraw Amendment No. 53 in the light of the Government's introduction of Amendment No. 52. I think I understand the reasons for that. I mention in passing that one of the problems in the situations in which we find ourselves is that the water companies obviously have to produce sufficient profit to satisfy their shareholders. The possibility of opening up the markets further is one about which one might have reservations, given that water is such a scarce resource.
We have a non-profit-making company in Wales, Glas Cymru, which could perhaps show the way in some respects in that it reduces the amount that consumers have to pay at present because it is funded in a different way. I shall refer to that in speaking to a later amendment. Therefore, I am pleased that it looks as though government Amendment No. 52 will go

175
ahead and that best regulatory practice will be transparent, accountable and proportionate. This is a desirable objective and one that we support.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, in reference to Amendment No. 50 relating to a proposed period of 12 years, the Bill places a primary duty on the Secretary of State and the authority to further the consumer objective, which includes promoting effective competition where appropriate. In fulfilling that duty, the Secretary of State and the authority would need to consider the effects of competition on the interests of consumers, not just in the short term but in the medium and long term. Therefore, it seems to me that a 12-year period creates an unnecessary and artificial constraint on those decisions.
In regard to Amendment No. 51, new Section 2(2C) also requires the Secretary of State, when furthering the consumer objective, to have regard to the interests of customers who are not eligible to be supplied by licensed water suppliers—thereby increasing the protection of undertakers' retained customers' interests against any possible unwanted and detrimental effects of competition.
When noble Lords tabled a similar amendment to Amendment No. 51 in Grand Committee, I think that the main aim was to seek clarification on the restrictions under which associated licensed water suppliers can operate. The noble Baroness referred to that, as she did in relation to an earlier amendment today. The position is that undertakers can already carry out activities, apart from their regulated business, through associated companies. Under this legislation they cannot operate as licensed suppliers to themselves, and associated licensed water suppliers' activities must be at arm's length from those of their parent companies.
Another sensible regulation is that licensees owned by undertakers can operate anywhere except in their own parent undertakers' areas. If the undertaker and the licensee operated in the same area, in theory that would allow the same company to compete for a customer and possibly effectively cut off all other competition for that customer. It would be an incentive for the undertaker to remove all its eligible customers from its regulated business into its licensed business—a point that I raised in Grand Committee—because the regulated business would be price—capped, whereas its licensee would not be price-capped in that way. When we discussed this matter, I believe that all consultees were in favour of that restriction in relation to the operation of associated companies.
I turn to my Amendment No. 52, which, again, has been tabled in response to an amendment in Grand Committee. The amendment would have the effect of requiring the Secretary of State and the new regulatory authority to have regard to the principles of better regulation when carrying out their functions. There is a difference between my Amendment No. 52 and Amendment No. 53, which includes some other aspects of the Better Regulation Task Force.
176
In order to clarify matters, I still have some concerns about spelling out the issue in the way that Amendment No. 53 would do—in particular, the implications of paragraph (b)—in that this industry is predominantly monopolistic. Therefore, regulation of the quality of supply or pricing is crucial, both in terms of all the sustainability objectives and public health. It is difficult to see that self-regulation in this industry would have the same appeal as it might in industries where wider competition exists. Incidentally, I would also argue that paragraph (e) of Amendment No. 53 is already covered by the Bill.
Therefore, I believe that Amendment No. 52. which is worded in slightly more general terms, is the more appropriate. When we reach it, I shall wish to move that amendment in preference to the noble Baroness's amendment.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his response to these various amendments. We believe that the Government's Amendment No. 52 covers some of our anxieties and that is why I indicated that we would not press Amendment No. 53. In particular, there is always an argument as to whether self-regulation is or is not appropriate. Having heard what the Minister said, I am satisfied on that point.
The Minister said that paragraph (e) in Amendment No. 53 is already covered. I shall need to ensure that we are fully satisfied on that point. However, at this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 51 not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 52:
Page 43, line 40, at end insert—
"(4) In exercising any of the powers or performing any of the duties mentioned in subsection (1) above in accordance with the preceding provisions of this section, the Secretary of State and the Authority shall have regard to the principles of best regulatory practice (including the principles under which regulatory activities should be transparent, accountable, proportionate, consistent and targeted only at cases in which action is needed).""
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 53 not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 54 and 55:
Page 43, line 48, leave out "(unless the context otherwise requires)"
Page 44, line 9, leave out ", 66G" and insert "to 66H"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 39 [Guidance to Authority on social and environmental matters]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 56:
Page 44, line 35, at end insert—
"( ) In formulating guidance, the Secretary of State and the Assembly shall, where practicable. have regard to the costs and benefits which may be expected to result from the guidance."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 56, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 58. The issue dealt with in this amendment was raised in Grand Committee when the noble Baroness tabled an amendment which had a similar intention to Amendments Nos. 56 and 58. The intention of both amendments is to set out in statute the requirement for an analysis of the costs and benefits that could be expected as a result of issuing guidance under this clause. We agreed to take away the idea and give it further consideration, as a result of which we have tabled Amendment No. 56.
I believe that these two amendments are closer than they may seem to be on the surface. We would, of course, expect to publish our consideration of costs and benefits, as is standard practice with new regulatory proposals. The process of preparing a regulatory impact assessment also recognises that there will be cases when it may not be practicable to identify or evaluate fully all costs and benefits. That is expressly catered for in the government amendment. Therefore, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel that it is not necessary to press her amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, for proposing Amendment No. 56, which comes in response to the long debate that we had in Grand Committee. I have prepared a speech. which I shall willingly repeat, on my Amendment No. 58 but, at this stage, I shall happily support the government amendment and thank the Minister for putting it before us on Report.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 57:
Page 44. line 35, at end insert—
"(1A) In particular. before any alteration to the water pricing or consumer charging regimes, the Authority shall receive guidance to—

(a) define a household income to water charge ratio below which consumers will he regarded as likely to have difficulty in paying such charges; and

(b) set out such new measures to be undertaken by the Secretary of State or the Assembly as will address such difficulties."

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in this amendment I return to the issue of water affordability. I make no apologies to the House for taking a little time on this matter because I consider it to be very important. Indeed, I believe that it is perhaps the most important issue that we still have to discuss on Report.
The first part of the amendment seeks to ensure that the Government address the issue of defining water affordability. The second part seeks to ensure that the Government do something to address the difficulties raised by the rising levels of debt. I believe this issue to be of equal interest to water companies, which are concerned about the high levels of debt, and to the groups which struggle to represent individuals with water bill debts and the individuals themselves.
The fact is that levels of debt are rising. I remind the House that some 19 per cent of British households are now in debt in respect of their water bills. The Water Framework Directive will require changes to the way that water is charged for, and therefore it is possible that its implementation will increase levels of debt. I believe that the Government must do something to address this issue. Water UK estimates that annually at least £10 is added to every water bill for every household through people defaulting on their water bills. There is a clear need to separate the two groups. First, there is the "can't pay" group and, secondly, the "won't pay" group.
I tabled a similar amendment in Grand Committee and I have taken the Minister's reply into account. At that stage he said that the amendment should relate more to the purpose that it sought to address. He said that the approach in the amendment that I tabled on that occasion was entirely in isolation. I hope that the new amendment relates to the activity of the regulator.
This amendment further takes into account the Minister's comments in Grand Committee that the amendment would not have any effect beyond pure symbolism. The new amendment encourages the Secretary of State, when issuing guidance to the regulator on pricing, to be precise about what Clause 39 means. The regulator must have regard to individuals with low incomes, as specified in Clause 38(2C)(c). This amendment seeks to help further by ensuring that it is clear what a low income is with regard to water charges.
Paragraph (b) of the amendment encourages the Secretary of State to think beyond the unsuccessful vulnerable groups regulations scheme. It is reasonable to praise those water companies that helped to advance work on that scheme in order to make it more successful. I refer in particular to the Severn Trent Trust Fund and the Anglia Water Trust Fund. The Government must come up with something that is more country-wide because at the moment the applications of the scheme are geographically arbitrary and inequitable. The take-up of the scheme is absolutely pitiful. According to government figures, it is 0.6 per cent and according to the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health, it is 0.4 per cent. Whichever of those figures is correct, vulnerable groups are not being dealt with in a meaningful way.
I remind the Minister of the reasons why the tax and benefits system fails to tackle water affordability. There is a problem with water affordability that affects more consumers than are assisted by vulnerable groups regulations, no matter how they may be amended. The Government made clear their view that such customers are struggling with affordability and should be helped through the tax and benefits system. However, that is far from the solution of tackling the problem of the affordability of water, for various reasons. First, the notional element of income support that is intended to cover water bills has not kept pace with those bills. Between 1988 and 1997, the amount of that benefit fell from 80 per cent of the average water bill to just 55 per cent.
Secondly, some groups of vulnerable consumers on means-tested benefits, particularly households without children, spend a far greater proportion of their income on their water bill than others. The average unmeasured household bill for 2001–02 amounts to 8 per cent of the income of the single person on jobseeker's allowance, 5 per cent for a couple on the jobseeker's allowance and 4 per cent for a pensioner on the minimum income guarantee. Those figures are similar for measured bills: 7 per cent, 4 per cent and 4 per cent respectively. Defra developed its own yardstick of 3 per cent, so it is aware that there is an issue. I am not clear why the Government will not therefore include the amendment in the Bill. Those consumers are paying unacceptable and unsustainable amounts for their water.
As noble Lords said, the size of water bills varies hugely, depending on regions, but the amount of means-tested benefits does not. In Plymouth, for example, a single person on the jobseeker's allowance paid a massive 13 per cent of their income on the average water bill in 2000–01.
It is time that the issue was addressed; I also refer to individuals who cannot afford their water and to water companies, which must struggle with the "won't pay" section of society, whom they are now unable to disconnect from the water supply. We heard at length in Committee that people who choose not to pay their water charges, even though they could, rank paying their water bill below paying for goods from catalogues, satellite dishes and so on. The Government must address the issue from everyone's point of view. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, as I said in earlier debates, the Government take this subject very seriously. We estimate that vulnerable groups constitute up to 1.5 per cent of eligible customers—currently, about 5,000. The recent consultation paper addressed issues of take-up. We are involved in that consultation.
I do not believe that the amendment would deliver what the noble Baroness seeks. It would be possible to have a theoretical, mechanistic ratio between income and water charges, which could be supplied to the regulator and the companies. However, applying that ratio in particular circumstances would be extremely difficult, not least because income information is inevitably sensitive and is not normally in the public domain. Customers might be reluctant to declare their income to a private sector company. We are not currently happy to encourage a system that was based on that; in other words, on asking a company to check on its customers' income details.
The Government have taken a number of steps to alleviate water poverty and we are consulting further. We already have the proposals about disconnection and the protection for vulnerable groups, which is in the Bill but was available earlier. The noble Baroness
180
may be right to say that awareness of the situation needs to be improved, but I do not believe that the additional system that she would impose on the regulator and the company is deliverable in terms of the aim that she seeks to achieve. I therefore maintain that we can better deal with the matter when we have fully assessed the consultation on water poverty; the consultation period has just finished and we are now considering the responses. It would not be appropriate for us to adopt the noble Baroness's proposal in any case before we have considered those responses. It is not operationally possible to do that without involving vast sensitivities, which we do not wish to encourage.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I am slightly surprised by it because my amendment simply asks that the authority should receive guidance to define a household income. It does not ask individual households what their income is. It therefore does not involve developing a mechanistic ratio, as he called it. It simply asks for a definition and leaves the Secretary of State to set out such measures.
I understand that there is currently a consultation. The fact is that the responses will be received too late to be incorporated in the Bill, even if the Government were minded to do so. We might well be left to drift for several more years in this unacceptable position.
I was saddened not to have the support of the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, from the water industry's point of view. The industry also feels that something must be done to address the levels of debt, which it, too, finds difficult.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. I was tempted to speak earlier but we have gone over this piece twice already and measures are currently being considered. I was going to ask the Minister a question on another occasion but, while I am on my feet, I may as well ask him it now.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I am afraid that my noble friend cannot.
Baroness O'Cathain: No, my Lords, I cannot. Isn't he lucky?
Baroness Byford: My Lords, my noble friend could write to the Minister.
Baroness O'Cathain: I will, my Lords.
My issue on debt is different from that discussed by the noble Baroness. I wanted to keep them separate.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her explanation that she regards the matter as a different issue. I am disappointed by the Government's response. I remember that a number of the Minister's colleagues in another place, and indeed in this House, were a vociferous part of the national forum on water poverty. The measure that I have set out would move the matter forward, and I had hoped that the

181
Government would have taken it on board. They clearly are not minded to do that, so I shall test the opinion of the House.
5.49 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 57) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 45; Not-Contents, 126.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Michie of Gallanach, B.

Alderdice, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B [Teller]

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Avebury, L.

Newby, L.

Barker, B.

Northover, B.

Bradshaw, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Perry of Walton, L.

Craigavon, V.

Razzall, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Redesdale, L.

Dholakia, L.

Rennard, L.

Finlay of Llandaff, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Goodhart, L.

Russell, E.

Hamwee, B.

Sandberg, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Sandwich, E.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Hylton, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Linklaterof Butterstone, B.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L. [Teller]

Smith ofClifton, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Steel of Aikwood, L.

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

McNally, L.

Tordoff, L.

Maddock, B.

Walmsley, B.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Williams of Crosby, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Donoughue, L.

Ahmed, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Alli, L.

Dubs, L.

Amos, B.

Elder, L.

Andrews, B.

Evans of Parksids, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Barnett, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Filkin, L.

Billingham, B.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Blackstone, B.

Gale, B.

Borrie, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Golding, B.

Brennan, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Brookman, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Carter, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Chan, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Harris of High Cross, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Harrison, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Haskel, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Hayman, B.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Craig of Radley, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Crawley, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

David, B.

Howells of St.Davids, B.

Davies of Coity, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Desai, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Dixon, L.

Jones, L.

182

King of West Bromwich, L.

Radice, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Layard, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Lipsey, L.

Renwick of Clifton, L.

Lockwood, B.

Richard, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Sheldon, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Simon, V.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Slim, V.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Stallard, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Marsh, L.

Strange, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B

Massey of Darwen, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Thornton, B.

Mitchell, L.

Turnberg, L.

Morgan, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L.

Nicol, B.

Warner, L.

Orme, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Parekh, L.

Weatherill, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Whitaker, B.

Paul, L.

Whitty, L.

Pendry, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Peston, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord President of the Council)

Pitkeathley, B.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6 p.m.
[Amendment No. 58 not moved.]
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 59:
After Clause 39, insert the following new clause—
"COORDINATED REGULATION
After section 5 of the WIA there is inserted—
"PART IA COORDINA TED REGULATION
COORDINATED REGULATION
(1) In this section the Agency, the Authority, the Chief Inspector of Drinking Water and (if separately appointed) the Chief Inspector of Drinking Water for Wales and the Consumer Council for Water shall together be referred to as "the regulators".
(2) The Secretary of State, the Assembly and the regulators shall exercise all their statutory powers and duties, which relate to or may affect the water industry, in a coordinated manner.
(3) To that end, the Secretary of State, the Assembly and the regulators shall consult and cooperate with one another."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 59 deals with co-ordinated regulation. We debated the matter in Grand Committee on Amendment No. 102. The amendment was supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, and the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. That amendment was criticised because it was exceedingly long, taking up one and a half columns of Hansard. Amendment No. 59 is the former Amendment No. 102 stripped down to its bare essentials.
The Minister concluded his remarks in Grand Committee by inviting other Members to bring forward a more appropriate amendment. He said:
"Perhaps I may leave it to other noble Lords to bring forward a more appropriate amendment".—[Official Report. 8/4/03; col. GC29.]
That leaves us with the burden and we have done our best. I hope that it satisfied the Minister and that he is pleased with the result; otherwise we shall have to invite him to take it away to improve on it.
It is a sensible amendment in principle and I ask the Minister to consider it seriously. I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, we support the idea of co-ordinated regulation. Although the Minister may point out some way in which the amendment can be improved, it seems to do the job.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, I gave a word of support for the amendment in Grand Committee. However, when I read it now, because of the very fact that it has been simplified, it looks like motherhood and apple pie. I say to myself, surely sensible regulators will get together and co-ordinate their activities. They will not live in separate ivory towers. Do we really need to have on the statute book that they should co-operate with one another? I now question the necessity of the amendment.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, has more faith than we do and this is why we recommend the amendment. We hope that the Government will deal with it sympathetically.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I, too, recommend the amendment. In my experience people like to live in silos and do not communicate. The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, grimaced but that is the reality. People build up empires and say, "No one can come near me. I'm king of my castle so forget it". I support the amendment.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, we are all in favour of cooperation, co-ordination and communication between regulators. This amendment is better than the previous one, but it is not quite there yet. The problem is that, in one sense, it is so simple. That is not the motherhood and apple pie objection, but the amendment proposes that the regulators shall exercise all their statutory powers and so forth "in a co-ordinated manner".
Each regulator has a separate and distinctive role and to co-ordinate on every exercise of power with the other regulators is not particularly appropriate. To provide for that in a general way in subsection (3) is clearly highly desirable, but subsection (2) might be over-prescriptive.
However, I share the noble Lord's general objectives and I shall take the matter away and consider whether we can move some way down this road without unintended side effects.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that helpful reply. It removes from me the obligation to remind the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, of his remarks in Grand Committee. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness O'Cathain Baroness O'Cathain moved Amendment No. 60:
After Clause 39, insert the following new clause—
"REGULATORY METHODOLOGY
After section 2 of the WIA there is inserted—
"2C REGULATORY METHODOLOGY
(1) The Authority shall prepare and publish a statement of policy with respect to its determination of charges in periodic reviews and interim determinations under all or any of the instruments of appointment of companies as relevant undertakers made by virtue of Part II of this Act.
(2) The Authority's statement of policy under this section shall include a statement of its policy with regard to the following matters—

(a) the carrying out of its duties under this Act insofar as they relate to its determination of charges;

(b) the matters to be taken into account and the methodologies to be applied in its determination of charges; and

(c) the extent to which the performance of functions by persons with powers and duties conferred or imposed by or under this Act or any other enactment are relevant to its determination of charges.

(3) The Authority shall determine charges in periodic reviews and interim determinations under a company's instrument of appointment as a relevant undertaker on the basis of the most recently published statement of policy.
(4) The Authority may revise its statement of policy and where it does so shall publish the revised statement.
(5) Publication under this section shall be in such manner as the Authority considers appropriate for the purpose of bringing the matters contained in the statement of policy to the attention of persons likely to be affected by them and shall not be made less than twelve months before a periodic review.
(6) When preparing or revising its statement of policy under this section, the Authority shall consult relevant undertakers and such other persons as it considers appropriate, subject to the requirements of subsection (7) below.
(7) For the purposes of subsection (6) above—

(a) consultation shall be by way of written notice given by the Authority not less than six months prior to the publication of the statement of policy which it is preparing or revising;

(b) such notice shall state—

(i) the matters which the Authority proposes to publish in its statement of policy and its reasons for including them in the statement; and

(ii) a period of not less than three months within which that person may give written notice of objection with respect to the matters referred to in the notice; and

(c) the Authority shall give each person a reasonable opportunity to make oral representations to it on the matters referred to in the notice.

(8) The Authority shall not issue or publish a statement of policy unless—

(a) no notice of objection to the policy is given to the Authority within the time period specified in its notice under subsection (7); or

(b) one or more relevant undertakers gives notice of an objection to the Authority within that time and—

(i) the proportion (expressed as a percentage) of the relevant undertakers who have given notice of an objection is less than such percentage as may be prescribed; and

(ii) the percentage given by subsection (9) is less than such percentage as may be prescribed.

(9) The percentage given by this subsection is the proportion (expressed as a percentage) of the relevant undertakers who have given notice of objection, weighted according to their market share in such manner as may be prescribed.
(10) If the conditions referred to in subsection (8) are not met, the Authority shall (within three months of its receipt of the first or only notice of objection) refer the policy to the Competition Commission for review.
(11) Where a reference is made to the Competition Commission under this section, it shall be the duty of the Competition Commission to determine whether the policy which is the subject of the reference operates in a manner best calculated to fulfil the duties of the Authority arising under this Act.
(12) Where a reference is made to the Competition Commission under this section, the Authority shall not prepare or revise its statement of policy other than on the basis of the determinations of the Competition Commission.
(13) The Secretary of State may by regulations make such provision as he considers appropriate for regulating the procedure to be followed with respect to any reference to the Competition Commission under this section.
(14) Without prejudice to the generality of the power conferred by subsection (13) above, regulations under that subsection may, in relation to any such reference, apply (with or without modifications) the provisions of any enactment relating to the references to the Competition Commission under the provisions of this Act, the Fair Trading Act 1973 (c. 41) or the Competition Act 1998 (c. 41).""
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 60 requires the water regulator to consult on and publish on a timely basis a statement of policy on how the regulator plans to conduct a price review; and also to state the methodology that it will use to set prices.
If a water company feels that there are some elements of methodology with which it is unhappy, the clause then allows the company to appeal to the Competition Commission for a strictly limited time period. The review which a company can seek must be of the whole of the methodology, to recognise that the methodology must be internally consistent. There cannot be cherry picking. All of this would take place well before a company submits a detailed business plan to the regulator, with detailed numbers to be used in price setting.
The purpose of the amendment is to achieve better decision making by the water regulator. It seeks to ensure that the regulatory mythology—that was a Freudian slip!—methodology is well-based and agreed long before discussion of detailed plans and numbers takes place under the periodic review.
At the moment, a company can appeal against a defective regulatory methodology only right at the end of the process, when it can appeal to the Competition Commission. This is far too late in the process.
In the past, Ofwat has used defective methodologies that have been criticised by the Competition Commission. In the previous price review, the Competition Commission rejected an adjustment that Ofwat had made to depreciation allowances to align them with expected maintenance expenditure—the so-called "broad equivalence" rule. It also criticised a number of other detailed elements of the methodology. The Commons Environmental Audit Committee believed that the insufficient attention given to capital maintenance amounted to "intellectual neglect" on Ofwat's part. That appeared in the 7th report, Water Prices and the Environment.
An appeal mechanism at the methodology stage could have picked this problem up and resolved it before further detailed numbers work. So the benefits of getting the methodologies right at an early stage would be substantial.
In Grand Committee, the Minister said he thought that it was somewhat bureaucratic and would not improve the conduct of price reviews. Only one extra step is introduced into what is already a complicated process—that is, the referral to the Competition Commission on a strictly time-limited basis of the defective methodologies.
The benefits of getting the methodologies right early on greatly exceed the costs of this process, and introducing this referral provides an important incentive to the regulator to get the methodologies right.
The Minister also felt that it would greatly limit the flexibility of the regulator and his opportunities to innovate and would give companies the right to obstruct policies. Companies cannot obstruct policy. All they can do under the clause is to ask for a review. The amendment ensures that the regulator follows due process and consults properly, and enables peer review of methodologies by the Competition Commission. It builds on existing practices; it does not attempt to overturn them.
The final objection raised by the Minister was that the balance of influence between the companies and the consumers is disturbed. This is simply nonsense. The regulator's new duty to pursue the consumer objective is not altered in any manner whatever. I beg to move.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, in general, we agree with the principle of the amendment. However, I should be grateful if in summing up the noble Baroness could explain subsection (9), which states:
"The percentage given by this subsection is the proportion (expressed as a percentage) of the relevant undertakers who have given notice of objection, weighted according to their market share in such manner as may be prescribed".
Does that place the larger companies at an unfair advantage? If so, why does the mover of the amendment wish to create inequality of this kind? Is

187
not there a case for treating all companies in an equal way, or is there some agenda here that has put subsection (9) into this? I merely seek information and an explanation which perhaps the noble Baroness will address when she has had a look at it.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I still cannot accept the amendment. Clearly, the company should have an early opportunity to make representations to the regulator, and Ofwat should—and does—provide constructive occasions for such dialogue on the methodology for the periodic review. However, this amendment says that the authority must issue a statement of policy at an early stage in the periodic review, that that could be challenged, and that the Competition Commission could be brought in at that stage to determine whether that policy should he pursued. That could slow down the process, but it could also give additional powers to the company to upset the intentions of the regulator before any final determination is reached, and therefore before the company would suffer any detriment—at which point they can call in the Competition Commission.
The time restrictions implied by this measure would help make the process more static and inflexible, reducing the ability of the regulator to respond to changing circumstances. That is completely contrary to what the industy usually says about the regulator; namely, that it should operate much more flexibly.
I know that the noble Baroness denies this, but the amendment would enable undertakers to drop or at least delay the statement of policy, and shift the balance of power and influence between companies and consumers, because consumers have no equivalent rights to make an outside appeal at this point in the process. It would also, as the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, says, shift power from the smaller companies to the larger companies, in that the effectiveness of any such appeal-blocking mechanism with reference to the commission would be dependent on the market share. That does not seem to he an equitable treatment, even within the company.
This amendment therefore implies two shifts of power with which I am not prepared to go along. I regret that I continue to oppose the amendment.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, and the Minister for his comments.
The process of doing the periodic review is extraordinarily, excruciatingly long and detailed. It takes an enormous amount of management time. The idea of this amendment is to halve the process; to do the methodology and have it fixed in stone. In the past, the methodology has been found to be faulty, and the next stage, at which prices are set, is then faulty as a result.
If the methodology is signed off, such a problem will not occur in future. The water companies want some certainty. They look back over their shoulders at what happened at the last periodic review. I thought that by putting a time-limited clause into the amendment it
188
would help in that direction. They could not allow negotiations on the methodology to go on and on; there would have to be a cut-off point. We might review that to see whether the period specified is too much or too little.
There is no hidden agenda as regards subsection (9), but I will certainly consider the point about the balance of power between larger and smaller companies. I was convinced of the validity of this one. I am a member of a very small water company, and I saw that in the interests of the company that I knew, the amendment would remove much uncertainty and cut down on the puzzlement of those who. after Ofwat's price findings were given, scratched their heads and wondered whether they could question the methodology and what result another might have yielded. It would put a stop to all that questioning if they knew once and for all that the methodology was correct and had been agreed.
The amendment was in the interests of making the periodic review as efficient and effective as possible; to ensure that once the determination was given, there might be quibbles about price but there could be none about the methodology; to remove uncertainty; and above all, to recoup the management time that has been involved in all of this. It is difficult for people who are supposed to produce lots of clean, potable water and ensure consumer supply to spend so much management time on looking through the methodology ad nauseam. The amendment would have been a good counter to that.
I am disappointed by what the Minister said. I will probably come back to it at Third Reading, but in the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.16 p.m.
Baroness O'Cathain Baroness O'Cathain moved Amendment No. 61:
After Clause 39, insert the following new clause—
"LICENCE MODIFICATIONS
In section 14 of the WIA, after subsection (1) there is inserted—
"(1A) Where a company has requested the Authority to modify the conditions of its appointment and the Authority has not consented to making the modifications, the Authority shall make to the Competition Commission a reference which is so framed as to require the Competition Commission to investigate and report on the questions in subsection (1).
(1B) Before making a reference under subsection (1) or (1A), the Authority shall give notice of the matters specified in the reference to the company to whose conditions of appointment the modification relates and shall take into account any representations or objections which are duly made and not withdrawn.
(1C) Notice under subsection (1B) shall be in writing and shall specify a period of not less than 28 days from the date of receipt of the notice within which representations or objections with respect to the matters proposed to be specified in the reference may be made.""
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this is a new clause on licence modifications. Its purpose is to enable a water company to appeal to the Competition Commission against a refusal by Ofwat to modify the terms of its instrument of appointment, namely its licence. At the moment, only Ofwat has the right to

189
initiate alterations to licences. The amendment lends a more even-handed approach to the issue. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the amendment would create an automatic appeal to the Competition Commission against any refusal to amend conditions of appointment if requested to do so by the undertaker holding an appointment.
The amendment would take no account of the issues in each case and would mean that relevant precedents would have to be ignored. It would not even allow the company concerned to withdraw its request, even if it agreed with the authority's decision. The amendment contains several rigidities and technical problems, in any case.
The amendment would require the authority to consult and take into account the views of the company concerned on the terms of reference of the referral. It does not give the same rights to any other stakeholders or consumer groups.
The amendment would also introduce a potentially bureaucratic appeal system which would unsettle the balance between the company and the regulator, and clearly disadvantage consumers. Therefore, I cannot accept the amendment.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, before Cle noble Lord sits down, could he explain to the House a little more about this amendment? Is he completely happy with the situation raised by my noble friend Lady O'Cathain as regards the Bill? Does he not feel that there should be a right of appeal?
Does the Minister purely find fault with the words of this amendment, or is there a closed door; namely, that he feels that undertakers or water suppliers have no right to appeal directly themselves?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the amendment relates to an appeal when an authority has refused a request from a company to modify its conditions of appointment. In those circumstances I would not look for any system of appeal. This particular system has additional problems in terms of its rigidity. Nevertheless I am not persuaded that we would need an appeals system in those circumstances.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for asking for clarification, which we now have. I also thank the Minister. He more or less suggested that the amendment is fatally flawed. I was interested in what he had to say. Not being a shorthand writer I was not able to take down what he said, so I shall read what he said in Hansard tomorrow. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 40 [Standards of performance in relation to water supply]:
Baroness O'Cathain Baroness O'Cathain moved Amendment No. 62:
Page 46, line 30, after "research" insert "and regulatory impact assessment"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 62 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 63, 64, 65, 66 and 67. They all relate to standards of performance and to Clauses 40 and 41.
The amendment places on the face of the Bill requirements to conduct a regulatory impact assessment in order to provide cost benefit analysis when standards of performance are set. Clauses 40 and 41 enable the Secretary of State to initiate regulations setting new or amended standards of performance in relation to water supply and sewerage services. The regulator can do so in order to pursue policy objectives relating to public health and the environment or otherwise, where the regulator considers such regulations to be in the public interest. The clauses also set out the process for making such regulations.
At the moment the Secretary of State can make regulations setting standards of performance only if the regulator receives an application from the Director General of Water Services. That is in the Water Industry Act 1991, Sections 38, 39 and 95.
Standards of performance are usually set by Ofwat. The main means are setting water quality programmes under the quinquennial periodic review process, the overall performance assessment and setting targets for water leakage. But the considerations that it must take into account are defined in statute. And the process, the financial (cost) calculations and timetable for the price reviews and its policies on security of supply, water quality and the environment that are available to the public are often subject to consultation. Otherwise standards of performance are set through European Union and UK legislation; for example, the EU Drinking Water Directive.
Ministers want a reserve power to regulate the industry if they consider it politically necessary and/or if the water regulator is too slow to develop solutions to particular issues that arise. So companies need to be protected from the risk of responding to short-term political pressures without proper consideration of the costs to customers. One such safeguard is to have some kind of assessment in financial terms about whether benefits to the customer or the environment outweigh the costs. A balance needs to be struck. I beg to move.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I want to add my weight to this set of amendments. So often legislation comes through and we do not always look at the regulatory impact. These amendments ask that this matter should be on the face of the Bill and that research and regulatory impact assessments be carried out automatically. I had hoped that the Government would welcome this. As this is not Committee stage, I cannot speak on this again, so I hope that the Minister will deal fully with the point.
I have a couple of questions on the regulatory impact assessments as laid down in the amendments. If the Government say that the amendments are not necessary, could they identify where, within the Bill, the matter is dealt with in a satisfactory manner? If the Government are to say "No" to these amendments, we need to know whether they are saying "No" to the

191
individual amendments or whether the Minister feels that the matters are already covered in the Bill. If so, perhaps he could say where they are dealt with in the Bill.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I have some sympathy with the aims of the noble Baroness, but I do not believe that it is appropriate to write the RIA on the face of the Bill for wider consideration. As I have indicated, the Government are already committed to produce an RIA whenever these clauses are used to propose standards of performance. The Prime Minister made a Statement to that effect—nothing is more important than the Prime Minister's Satement. More relevantly, the commitment to RIA that accompanied the Bill stated that a separate RIA would be prepared on each occasion that the order-making power is used. Therefore, we have that in the process of the Bill. It is not in the Bill itself, but it is in the RIA produced with the Bill.
I am opposed to prescribing the form of the RIA on the face of the Bill because it would limit the development of the RIA process, which has been evolving over the past few years. It has brought in other matters such as environmental appraisals, rural proofing, equal treatment and so on as well as the more traditional areas of cost and benefit. Therefore, to prescribe it would set it in concrete, whereas the RIA process is evolving all the time.
Equally importantly, stating on the face of this Bill that an RIA is required every time an order-making power is used, would imply that where it is not so stipulated—despite the Prime Minister's Statement and other assurances by the Government—it may not be required. I am sure that this Government and any government of a party represented here would probably reassert that necessity. However, the fact is that in the courts, if it is stated in one place and not in another, that other place could say that it does not need an RIA to issue an order-making power under an Act, unlike under the Water Act which requires it to be done.
For that reason of precedent, I am opposed to putting the RIA on the face of the Bill, although we are very committed to ensure that no orders in this context under it would be issued without such an assessment.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, if such a matter had come through in the form of an order, which I presume he is inferring, would it be a negative or an affirmative order? That is of interest to us. Clearly, we have here the opportunity to debate the matter more fully. If it comes through as an order we have no power to stop it happening in the way in which the Government may wish it to be interpreted. I believe that clarification on that is important.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, a number of amendments in the group relate to different clauses. In some cases they are indeed negative procedures, but I am not sure that that is so in all cases. The objective of the
192
amendment was to ensure that in all cases, in this context, the order-making powers, whatever the procedure within the House, should be accompanied by an impact assessment. I accept that principle, whatever the parliamentary process.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her support and I thank the Minister for his conciliatory attitude for which I am grateful. He quotes the Prime Minister on the importance of an RIA. The Minister said that if you put it in one Bill you would have to put it in all Bills, as lawyers would have a field day if it was not in one Bill. People would say, "Why not when it is in the Water Act? Why not have an RIA on every Bill, if the Prime Minister is so for an RIA?" I take the Minister's point that it could limit the development of the RIA, because it is an evolutionary process, but practically every business process is an evolutionary process. It is not necessarily fixed in concrete. Perhaps we could do something with the amendment. I will take another look at it to see whether we could cover that valid point.
One does not want to be fixed, but on the other hand, one wants to ensure that the impact assessment is made. I thank the Minister for his constructive comments. I will read them tomorrow, but I will probably come back at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 63 and 64 not moved.]
Clause 41 [Standards of performance in relation to sewerage services]:
[Amendments Nos. 65 to 67 not moved.]
Clause 42 [General functions of the Council]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 49, line 8, leave out "and"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 68, 69 and 70 extend the list of groups to which the council must have special regard. It adds customers of undertakers that are not eligible to switch suppliers under the Bill's competition measures. It matches a similar duty on the authority and is part of a package of government amendments that increase the council's influence on the development of competition. I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I welcome this group of amendments and the fact that the Government have chosen to strengthen the role of the council in this regard at least. I look forward to seeing that enacted.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, like the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, we welcome the amendments. We think that the consumer council should be looking in this area, and it is helpful.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendments Nos. 69 and 70:
Page 49, line 9, at end insert ";and
(e) customers, of companies holding an appointment under Chapter 1 of Part 2 of this Act, whose premises are not eligible to be supplied by a licensed water supplier,"
Page 49, line 11, at end insert—
"( ) For the purposes of subsection (1) above, premises are not eligible to be supplied by a licensed water supplier if—

(a) they are household premises (as defined in section 17C above); or

(b) the total quantity of water estimated to be supplied to the premises annually for the purposes of subsection (2) of section 17D above is less than the quantity specified in that subsection."

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 49, line 29, leave out from beginning to end of line 6 on page 50 and insert—
"( ) Subject to subsection (7) below, in the exercise of its function under this section, the Council shall have regard to the need for excluding from such proposals, advice, information and views, so far as practicable—

(a) any matter which relates to the affairs of an individual, where the publication of that matter would or might, in the opinion of the Council, seriously and prejudicially affect the interests of that individual; and

(b) any matter which relates specifically to the affairs of a particular body of persons, whether corporate or unincorporated, where publication of that matter would or might, in the opinion of the Council, seriously and prejudicially affect the interests of that body."

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this group of amendments expresses why my pleasure in the previous group of amendments is slightly alloyed. We must return to the fact that in this Bill the Government have created a consumer council for water but in some areas of activity they have already drawn the teeth of that consumer council before it has had a chance to bite.
The Minister made a comment earlier this evening, when speaking to Amendment No. 53, about the monopolistic structure of the water industry, which is correct. The difficulty that the Government have had with the Bill is that they have modelled many of the clauses about the consumer council for water on the Utilities Act 2000. These amendments take us back to the unsatisfactory nature of those issue; and the fact that we did not get much response in Committee, beyond the fact that the Utilities Act 2000 had been the model for them.
Amendments Nos. 71 and 72 are concerned with the powers of the council to publish information about water companies. I will return to them in more detail in a moment. Amendment No. 76 leaves the council with a more definite remit to specify its needs for information. As much wrangling could happen over the word "reasonably; that amendment seeks to delete "reasonably" from the Bill. I do rot think that the council would wish to act unreasonably, so I do not see any reason to have "reasonably" in the Bill.
Amendments Nos. 78 and 79 concern provision of information to the council. Amendment No. 80 deletes the part of the Bill that creates what I call the "round the houses effect", where if a person fails to supply information to the council, that failure is referred to the authority, and the Secretary of State can make regulations about that failure and so on. This deletion enables the council to have a more direct approach.
Amendments Nos. 100, 101 and 102 give the council a duty to have regard for issues of individual or commercial confidentiality. The reason for including those in the Bill is that if the council is going to have a power to collect information, it must have regard to the fact that it is not going to abuse that power. In accepting the fact that it should have wider powers to collect information, it is sensible to table these amendments, which confine that power so that it cannot do anything that would damage either individuals or companies in a commercial manner.
I will return in more detail to Amendments Nos. 71 and 72. We accept that water companies are monopoly suppliers and consumer protection relies on close scrutiny by the regulator and the consumer body. An independent consumer body will be able to publicise information about a company where the council has evidence that the company is causing consumer detriment.
However, as currently drafted, the Bill can prohibit publication by the council of a water company's incompetence. That restriction is inconsistent with the Freedom of Information Act 2000. It is modelled much more on the Utilities Act, which supposes a structure that is not monopolistic. The Freedom of Information Act gives the presumption that a body can publish rather than cannot publish. As far as the consumer council for water goes, the whole Bill has been drafted in the negative with regard to publication issues. It cannot publish anything unless certain conditions are met. This group of amendments seeks to turn that around to a positive, so that it can publish everything, unless there is a good reason not to. I beg to move.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, the publication of information that anyone has the right to collect is always a problem area. I sympathise with the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, in putting down these amendments. She enunciated the correct principle towards the end of her remarks when she said that, in principle, everything that can be published should be published.
That still leaves one with a problem as to where the boundary line lies. If the boundary lies in one place, particularly where it might concern individuals, it might well lie in a different place, or be considered to lie in a different place, if one was dealing with a registered water supplier or a major water company. There is a difficulty of definition, but the principle of publishing as much as can be published is one that we support.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 71, 72, 79, 100, 101 and 102 are concerned with the consumer council's powers to publish information. The council is required to have regard to any opinion expressed by the authority about any serious and prejudicial effect of publishing or about the desirability of publishing. The amendments raise two issues: the level of protection of the individual or body and the extent to which the council can act on its own. We recognise the need for the council to be independent from the authority, but in this case it makes sense for the council to have regard for the authority's opinion. It is important to note that it will still be for the council to take the final decision.
Assessing whether publishing information may have serious or prejudicial effects on a company may mean examining quite technical issues involving the financial markets, for example. Therefore, it would be better for the council to have to draw on the greater expertise of the regulator in those matters and then to have regard to the opinion.
The legislation should also keep a balance between human rights of individuals and bodies and the public's right to information. We believe that the Bill as drafted strikes that right balance between those two concerns, whereas the effect of the amendments could be that an individual has no knowledge of the possibility of being named in a publication before it is printed.
We support the aim of Amendment No. 76 to require the council to act responsibly and to avoid imposing an unnecessary burden. However, we do not believe that the amendment would add anything. It can require only information that it needs for the purpose of exercising its functions. Any such request would be reasonable.
Amendments Nos. 78 and 80 would replace the dispute resolution procedures in the Bill and enable the consumer council to enforce its own directions when the authority or company refused to supply it with information. If an undertaker or the authority refuses to provide information to the council, it will need to provide reasons for its failure. The council will be able to assess those and publish them. Any refusal would therefore have to be backed up by very good reasons.
If there is a dispute, it will be for the authority, or such other person as the Secretary of State prescribes, to decide whether the information should be provided. Reasons for refusal to comply may be technical; for example, commercial confidentiality. The authority, with its detailed knowledge of the water industry, is better placed than the Secretary of State or a third party to judge whether those claims are justified.
We do not believe that it is appropriate to give the council enforcement powers, as it is a representative body for consumers, not a regulator. We should bear in mind the detailed procedures and safeguards that the regulator must observe if it takes enforcement action. That is not provided in these amendments. The consumer council should not be able to act without at least the same level of protection for the bodies that it proposes to act against.
196
Incompetence is very likely to lead to complaints. There is no restriction on publishing information about complaints. I refer to Clause 45. I shall read carefully the point made by both noble Lords—about everything being published that can be—without any commitment. In the mean time, having given quite a full answer, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the detail of her reply, but I am not sure yet whether I should thank her for the spirit behind it. She says that she will consider carefully the need to enable the publication of more information; in other words, the premise is a support for publication rather than against it. Perhaps in discussions before Third Reading we can have a clearer idea as to whether the Bill could be improved in that regard.
The Minister tempted me earlier in her reply to test the opinion of the House on whether the consumer council should, in some ways, remain subservient to the water authority. The consumer council could draw on enough expert opinion to give it the authority and expertise that it needs. I shall study the Minister's reply in detail. In the meantime, I look forward to more discussions and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 72 not moved.]
Clause 43 [Provision of information to the Council]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 73 and 74:
Page 51, line 40, leave out "or"
Page 51, line 42, at end insert "; or

(c) a licensed water supplier,"

On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments No. 75 to 80 not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 81 and 82:
Page 53, line 35, after "company" insert "holding an appointment or a licensed water supplier"
Page 54, line 6, after "company" insert "holding an appointment and a licensed water supplier"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
6.45 p.m.
Clause 44 [Provision of statistical information to consumers etc]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 83:
Page 54, leave out lines 19 to 21.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 83, I shall speak to the remaining amendments in the group. They follow up the commitment I made in Committee to reconsider the duty placed on the consumer council to publish statistical information about undertakers' levels of performance. I reconsidered the matter, and the outcome is as noble Lords wished and is supported by Ofwat and WaterVoice. Amendments Nos. 83, 86 and 87 remove the duty from the council and leave it with the regulatory authority, where it currently resides. The other two amendments are consequential.
Amendments Nos. 84 and 85 place on the consumer council a duty to publish information about complaints against licensed water suppliers as well as undertakers. There is a general consensus that we should move in that direction. I beg to move.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for tabling this set of amendments. In Committee we had a long debate about treating water suppliers fairly. The Government were taxed by our suggestions then. We support the amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 84 to 87:
Page 54, line 23, after "undertakers" insert "or licensed water suppliers"
Page 54, line 26, after "undertakers" insert "or licensed water suppliers"
Page 54, leave out lines 34 to 36.
Page 54, line 44, leave out subsection (3).
On Question, amendments agreed to
Clause 45 [Consumer complaints]:
[Amendment No. 88 not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 89 and 90:
Page 55, line 6, after "undertaker" insert "or a licensed water supplier"
Page 55, line 7. at end insert "or the services provided by that licensed water supplier"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 91:
Page 55, line 13, after "subsection" insert"(2A) or"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the consumer council for water has a duty to investigate consumer complaints but has no power to resolve complaints. The amendment proposes that that power lies rightfully with the council.
When we debated the matter in Grand Committee, the Minister said that, although the consumer council for water should have the duties of a representative, they should not be confused with those of an adjudicator or enforcer. He pointed to the "binding mediation agreements" between some WaterVoice regional committees and water companies whereby voluntary compensation can be made payable. He also noted that Energy—watch the equivalent of the consumer council, but for gas and electricity—did not have statutory powers to seek compensation for complainants, and did not seek them.
As I mentioned previously, the comparison with the energy sector is misleading and irrelevant. Dissatisfied customers in gas and electricity can always switch suppliers, but in the water sector all household customers and most business customers will continue to be served by monopoly water companies.
The amendment addresses the possibility that the consumer council for water, as the customers' representative, might be the right body to have a compensation power. Will the Minister explain in
198
much clearer terms why the Government are giving the council a duty to deal with customers' complaints but no means of resolving them? Perhaps there should be another body, possibly the authority, which would have the power to fine companies and also the power to require compensation to be paid to customers following an investigation of their complaint. This is still one of the most unsatisfactory areas of the Bill in terms of consumers' rights; it will not make them feel very confident in the new consumer council. I beg to move.
Lord Borrie: My Lords, I oppose this amendment. As the noble Baroness knows, I did so in Grand Committee. I do not rely on the point with which she is quarrelling, as it were, with the Minister. Of course, I accept her point that there is a great difference in the water world compared to the energy world where, as she rightly said, if a customer is dissatisfied he can switch supplier. In the water world, ordinary consumers cannot switch suppliers although, to a limited degree, commercial consumers can.
However, it is important to say that the water consumer council, or WaterVoice, should it continue to call itself that—I think it a very good name—has a great deal more to do in terms of representing the consumer, as it has done so well for many years nationally, locally and regionally. Its work is well recognised, particularly by the Government in this Bill. I am sure that the noble Baroness welcomes that it is given a degree of independence in the Bill that it did not have previously.
The Bill establishes the consumer council for water, or WaterVoice, firmly as a representative of the consumer. One could use the word partisan. It is entitled to be partisan on behalf of the consumer. But to do the job of being partisan and representative would be very difficult if it involved also, from time to time, adjudicating upon a complaint made by a consumer against a water company and trying to judge impartially the arguments on both sides. It is very likely that lawyers would have to be involved, it is very likely that there would have to be a panel, or whatever, to do that particular job because the noble Baroness is suggesting that considerable penalties should be imposed. Water companies will not just go along with that without argument. I doubt that the noble Baroness expects them to do so. The jobs of adjudication and imposing penalties are very different from being representative. To try to do both would not be a good idea.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Borrie has by and large made my arguments for me. The point is that we cannot confuse the role of advocate with the role of judge and jury. The council exists to represent the views of consumers in their widest sense. It cannot therefore adjudicate between consumers and undertakers or licensees. To do so would be to unbalance the situation. The alternative approach would be to give it some duty in relation to undertakers, but that is not its role. Its role is a representational role. In pursuit of that representational role it can make approaches to the water

199
companies. Without formal powers, the present structure has led to a number of binding mediation agreements, but the consumer council is not actually doing the arbitration.
The council can also revert complaints to Ofwat to enforce against a company using its existing powers. For the consumer council to have enforcement powers is not only unprecedented, it would also greatly confuse its role. Normally the Liberal Democrats are great advocates of separation of powers. In this context, the logic of the position of my noble friend Lord Borrie and mine would eventually persuade them that this is not a sensible course to pursue.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply and for the contribution made by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie. I welcome the fact that the Bill gives the consumer council a degree of independence. I can see that the Bill, as drafted, does not give it the role of adjudicator although, of course, it could have chosen to do so. I know that I am barking up a tree on which the Government are not minded to give in. At this stage, I am content to look to the future and see how the consumer council for water works. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 92 not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 93 to 98:
Page 55, line 27, after "Wales" insert "or to services provided by a licensed water supplier using the supply system of a water undertaker whose area is wholly or mainly in Wales"
Page 55, line 28, leave out from "State," to end of line 29 and insert "in any other case."
Page 55, line 41, at end insert "or the licensed water supplier"
Page 55, line 42, after "undertaker" insert "or the licensed water supplier"
Page 56, line 4, after "undertaker" insert "or the licensed water supplier"
Page 56, line 11, after "undertaker" insert "or the licensed water supplier"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 46 [Investigations by the Council]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 99:
Page 56, line 36, leave out from first "consumers" to end of line 37.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 100 to 102 not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 102A:
Page 60. line 28, at end insert—
"( ) The power of the Secretary of State to make an order under subsection (11) above shall be exercisable by statutory instrument subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 102A in a sense is in response to Amendment No. 103. It relates to the power to make an order for determining a company's turnover, which is the means of limiting the penalty which may be imposed. We
200
always intended that this power would be exercised through the negative resolution procedure. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for drawing it to our attention that the Bill, as drafted, does not achieve this. For technical reasons the provision needs to make reference to the order being a statutory instrument and the amendment that I have tabled does this. I shall respond to the noble Baroness's amendments where appropriate. I beg to move.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for having listened to our arguments in Committee and for tabling the amendment. As I explained earlier, between Committee and Report it is necessary to table amendments, as the noble Lord knows so well. On this occasion, the amendment moved by the Minister is slightly longer than ours—usually it is the other way around. I am grateful to him for coming back with Amendment No. 102A and should like to record my thanks.
I turn now to Amendments Nos. 104, 105 and 106. Amendment No. 104 proposes that we include slightly greater protection in that the imposition of a penalty was based on an error of law or fact and that the amount of penalty was unreasonable. Because this is Report and not Committee obviously I cannot come back again. If the Minister is unable to accept, I hope that he will give full reasons for the reluctance of the Government to accept these reasonable amendments.
Amendments Nos. 105 and 106 return to an issue which I raised in Committee. I found the Minister's response to this amendment in Committee intriguing. He said:
"The Bill is drafted so that the court will be able to set the level of interest"
He continued:
"The effect of the amendment would be that the court would be tied to the same decision whenever there was a successful appeal. regardless of the seriousness of the company's failure or of the merits of the case".—[Official Report, 8/4/03; col. GC 55.]
It was my impression that the debate we had on penalties of up to 10 per cent of turnover hinged on the seriousness of the company's failure. The interest charge relates to the interest to be charged on a charged penalty—it gets a bit tongue-tying. It does not matter which party has to pay, the rate should be uniform. That is what we are trying to establish.
From the Minister's explanation, we may infer that as the Bill stands the courts might award interest to water undertakers at rates below bank rate, but where fault is proven against them at rates well above bank rate. That action could be the result of rulings from other departments, notably the Home Office. We bring this issue back to your Lordships today, it is to be hoped, to take it a little further.
7 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, in responding to the noble Baroness I shall continue speaking to the lead amendment, unless other noble Lords wish to speak.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, I want to respond to Amendments Nos. 105 and 106. I was

201
intrigued by what the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, said about the Minister's response in Committee. I would like clarification as to whether there is a difference in penalties in relation to the severity of the offence. New Section 22E(6) on appeals states:
"Where the court substitutes a penalty of a lesser amount it may require the payment of interest on the substituted penalty at such rate, and from such date, as it considers just and equitable".
The Minister and the noble Baroness may prove me wrong, but it seems better for the court to decide rather than for there to be a fixed rate. I ask the Minister if there is no difference between the severity of the offence on the one hand—as the noble Baroness said, in quoting from Committee—or whether different levels of penalty will be applied in relation to the severity of different types of offence. I am not clear about that point, but if there is a substantial difference between the severity of the offences and penalties are applied accordingly, surely the court should decide. If what the noble Baroness said is correct, maybe she has a point.
Lord Whiny: My Lords, there seems to be a consensus in favour of my Amendment No. 102A. I want to comment on Amendments Nos. 104, 105 and 106. Amendment No. 104 is unnecessary. It deals with the reasons why a court can quash or reduce a financial penalty on grounds of either error of law or fact, or of unreasonableness. But both those criteria are built into the Bill.
The enforcement authority has power under new Section 22A to impose a penalty only as is reasonable and it must act in accordance with the law. There is also notice before a penalty can be imposed, so there is an opportunity to point out an error of fact or law, or to contend unreasonableness given all the circumstances. The enforcement authority is required to consider such representations. If it fails to do so, then there is authority for it to be overturned.
I turn to interest. We are dealing with a case where the court has substituted a different penalty to that imposed by the regulator. It may impose interest as it considers just and equitable, as currently drafted. The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, seeks to restrict that provision in relation to the bank rate. My view, which I believe is shared by the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, is that the issues must he left to the court, as they would be in other circumstances, to consider the reason for the modification of the penalty, the severity of the offence and the circumstances of the company and the complainant. Therefore it is important that we leave that discretion with the courts rather than attempt to set down a rigid formula in statute.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, our argument is not that the courts should be able to decide differently and impose different penalties. The argument is that they should not be deciding on different interest rates. I do not think the Minister has addressed that point, although it is clear in our amendment.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I thought I was addressing it. We start with a situation where the court varies the
202
penalty, and it is a question of whether there is interest for one or other of the parties involved. As with other cases where the courts have the ability to apply interest, discretion should be left to the court as to the appropriate level of interest taking into account everything in the case. I believe I am right that there is not normally a formula laid down and that the courts' discretion applies.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I am greatly puzzled. I heard what the Minister had to say and at this stage I shall not pursue it further. But I need to read Hansard carefully. Perhaps between now and Third Reading we can have a conversation to clarify the matter.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 103 to 106 not moved.]
Clause 48 [Enforcement of certain provisions]:
Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 107:
Page 63, line 10, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, our argument for the amendment is based on our belief that it is not possible to be consistent, fair and right in assessing the likelihood of future transgression with no past wrongdoing to point the way.
In Grand Committee the Minister made our point for us in his reply on 8th April. I quote from four sentences taken in sequence from an uninterrupted response:
"so that the enforcement authorities … are able to take action before something goes wrong … the order itself is first and foremost to tell the recipient what action they must take to rectify a situation that has gone wrong.
"If it is apparent that a contravention is about to happen … The reason for this change in the Bill is to reduce the time in which further harm can occur".—[Official Report, 8/4/03; col. GC 56.]
If the clause causes that much confusion in the place of its birth, I imagine that it will become a lawyer's meal ticket for the courts. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Baroness is picking me up on my tenses and syntax. The point is that Clause 48 enables the enforcement authority to take precautionary action and reduces the timescale of its notice. The amendment would remove from the regulator the ability to take action before a contravention occurred. An enforcement order in that context would require a company to alter its operations to address a potential contravention. The enforcement authority would need to see clear evidence of circumstances where a contravention was likely to occur. The decision to impose an enforcement order in those circumstances would not be taken lightly, but it would be taken ahead of any damage being done to a third party.
It would be the judgment of the regulator that the contravention would take place unless the undertaker altered its behaviour. One could think of several circumstances where that might happen. In all circumstances, we need to provide a precautionary power for the regulator to instruct a company to alter its operations in advance of a formal contravention having taken place. We should not have to wait for

203
something to go wrong before the regulator acts. I hope that, after that explanation, the noble Baroness will not pursue the matter.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, the noble Baroness struggles to thank the Minister for his response, as she is not at all happy with it. The measure makes someone guilty before they have committed an offence, which is not desirable in law. It seems to prejudge them to have done something that they have not done—unless I have totally misread the clause and misunderstood the arguments we had in Committee. I am unhappy with the Minister's response. I shall certainly return to the issue at Third Reading, and I hope that between now and then we can come to a greater understanding on the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 52 [Determination references under section 12 of the WIA]:
Baroness O'Cathain Baroness O'Cathain moved Amendment No. 108:
Page 66, line 39, at end insert—
"(3C) For the purposes of subsection (3)(b)(ii) the principles there referred to shall permit, but not require, the Competition Commission, in re-determining any disputed price limit which a relevant undertaker had required the Director to refer to it, to include in that re-determination any allowance for all or part of that relevant undertaker's costs.
(3D) In subsection (3C) above "relevant undertaker's costs" means—

(a) the costs which it incurred in preparing for and pursuing its case before the Commission; and

(b) any costs (whether of the Director or the Commission) which are to be recovered from that relevant undertaker under, or by virtue of, any condition of its appointment.""

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment deals with the issue of who pays for the costs of a re-determination of price limits by the Competition Commission where a company has appealed to the commission against the decision of the authority on its price limits. The amendment would give powers to the commission to allocate costs fairly between the company's customers, its shareholders and the customers of other regulated companies and taxpayers.
Under existing law, when a company appeals to the Competition Commission and the commission re-determines price limits the costs of the appeal are included in the new price limits. The costs therefore fall on the customers of the company that appealed. In the two price limit inquiries held by the commission in 2000, for Mid Kent Water and Sutton and East Surrey Water, the commission followed the current law but questioned the desirability of invariably having to permit costs in such inquiries to be recovered from customers. In part that was because the costs appeared to be particularly onerous for the customers of the two relatively small companies involved.
The amendment would therefore permit the commission to allocate costs fairly. We have tabled the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Borrie,
204
in Committee. It is supported by Ofwat, Water Voice and Water UK. In Grand Committee, on 8th April, the Minister agreed to take away the two amendments proposed there on the matter and said that he hoped to return on Report with a government proposal. I tabled the amendment because no such proposal has yet appeared. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Baroness referred to my commitment in Committee to introduce an amendment to the same effect as hers on Report. It has proved difficult to draft that amendment, but with respect I cannot accept her drafting. However, it remains my intention to table an amendment at Third Reading.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I fully support the amendment. The Government suggested that they would introduce an amendment, and this amendment was tabled to ensure that happened. The Minister has kindly indicated that the Government will do that, for which I thank him very much.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I echo what my noble friend said. I thank the Minister very much. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 4 [Licensing of water suppliers]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 109:
Page 131. line 5, at end insert—
"In section 3(1)(d) after "undertaker" there shall be inserted "or licensed water supplier"."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 109 to 113 relate to an exchange in Grand Committee at col. 72 on 10th April. The noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, assured my noble friend Lady Byford:
"In supplying the water to licensed water suppliers, undertakers will remain under their existing duty under Section 3 of the Water Industry Act to further environmental objectives".—[Official Report, 10/4/03; col. GC 72.]
In response to a query as to whether licensed water suppliers would be equally affected by that clause, the Minister's reply was, "Yes, I believe so". We felt that the matter should be definite and not a matter of belief. That is no disrespect to the Minister who may tell us that it is definite in which case we should be happy to withdraw the amendment. We felt obliged to table the amendments for the sake of certainty.
Amendments Nos. 133 and 134 have been grouped with the first set of amendments, although they do not sit particularly easily with them. The Government stated that they did not want a removal of requirements on water undertakers to lay pipes to connect licensees to the system. All sorts of people have to lay pipes, cables, drains and heaven knows what else, with good will, gusto and great abandon and, of course, driven by absolute necessity. However, wherever it is practical to do so, those people should

205
have particular regard to green belt land or property dedicated under a conservation notice as an area of outstanding natural beauty. I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for introducing the first group of amendments for the sake of clarification, as the issue is important.
Under Amendments Nos. 133 and 134, I agree that we need to know about land that is under a special conservation notice. Indeed, that may be more crucial than the general blanket green belt land designation. I should like to hear from the Minister on the subject of land under a conservation notice for environmental reasons.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Lord seeks clarification, but his amendments would instil a degree of confusion. Clearly, we want licensees' development activities to be subject to general environmental duties. However, they will already be subject to the same environmental controls as any other developer of land. Where undertakers exercise powers on licensees' behalf, they will be carrying out a function placed on them by the Bill and subject to the environmental requirements that apply when they carry out their other functions. Therefore, the amendment is unnecessary.
Amendments Nos. 109 to 113 would require licensees to have regard to the desirability of protecting the environment, and so forth, when they formulate or consider proposals relating to undertakers' functions—but not, for some reason, their own. That would introduce a note of serious confusion, and the proposal is anyway unnecessary because that issue is covered under the general duties.
Amendments Nos. 133 and 134 seek to introduce a condition before undertakers take steps to facilitate supplies by licensees not to damage or disturb green belt land or property designated under a conservation notice. However, control of development within the green belt is concerned only with the openness of the green belt, and Section 3 of the WIA already requires undertakers to have regard to protecting buildings and sites of special interest. The amendments would introduce a completely new restriction for licensed water suppliers that would not apply to any other company or person.
The area is confusing. However, in short, when undertakers carry out functions, including exercising works powers in response to a request from a licensee, the general environmental duty under Section 3 will apply. If licensees carry out activities themselves, they will be subject to normal development controls and would need planning permission, together with any specific consents with respect to protected land or buildings, as well as needing to reach agreement with the landowners in the first place.
206
I share the objective behind the amendments, which is to protect the environment without obstructing the path of licensees to the supply system. However, the amendments would confuse the situation, as almost all their intention is covered by other parts of the Bill or by general planning law.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. I am not particularly surprised by it as I have had enough experience of general planning law to know what is involved. As regards the first four amendments in the group in particular, it is good to have the assurance that they are unnecessary and that the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, was right in her presumption, even though at that stage it was a presumption and she could not define it as a fact. Although we shall need to study the Minister's reply with care I am grateful for it. It seems to me that it is a satisfactory explanation. Certainly it is satisfactory for now. With that I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 110 to 113 not moved.]
The Deputy Speaker (Viscount Simon): My Lords, in calling Amendment No. 114, I advise your Lordships that if it is agreed to I cannot call Amendment No. 115 due to pre-emption.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 114:
Page 132, leave out lines 3 to 5.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this rather lengthy series of amendments relates to the competition provisions of the Bill. These are largely technical and consequential amendments. However, there are four amendments to which I should like to draw your Lordships' attention.
I agreed in Grand Committee to take away and consider the restriction on licensees' ability to reintroduce water supplied to a customer into the distribution system. Amendment No. 114 removes new Section 17A(6). The subsection prohibits the reintroduction of water by a licensee to an undertaker's supply system after that water had already been provided to a customer's premises by a licensee. After the discussion in Committee and further consideration, we now consider that the need to meet undertakers' water quality requirements for water input into their systems, in accordance with access agreements, and the likely cost of any necessary retreatment and of making a connection would make such a reintroduction very unlikely in practice; the subsection is therefore unnecessary.
Amendment No. 148 ensures that the powers currently available to undertakers to carry out works to install, repair or replace meters continue to be available to them when a licensee rather than an undertaker uses a meter. Amendment No. 149 extends to meters used by licensees the offence of tampering with a meter so as to prevent it from showing an accurate reading. Amendment No. 151 provides for the exchange of information about pollution incidents between the Environment Agency and licensees in order to protect the public water supply system and the environment.
The remaining amendments are technical. Unless noble Lords have particular concerns I shall not expound on those in detail. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale Lord Corbett of Castle Vale moved Amendment No. 116:
Page 133, line 45, leave out "50" and insert "25"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I was encouraged to raise the issue of the threshold requirement by WaterVoice, the body representing water customers, and Aqua Resources Ltd, which feels that, given the privatisation of the water industry, every consumer should have a choice of supplier.
At least one of the industry regulators—I do not know which although the Minister does—believes that the threshold figure should be different from the 50 megalitres in the Bill; that is, either higher or lower. The Government argue—as the Minister did in a letter to me dated 22nd May 2003—that,
"the threshold is a vital element in ensuring effective implementation of the competition regime".
That is not the whole story because the effect of the present threshold is to limit competition and in turn distort the market because it shields a clutch of monopoly water suppliers from full competition. While they enjoy that protection they can use that monopoly position to offer, for example, gas and electricity services in markets more liberalised than the protected water market.
There are other companies such as Countryside Energy, part of Countrywide Farmers plc, which offers a range of services including the supply of mains gas and electricity but is unable to do the same with water although it believes that extra competition would benefit its customers.
The 50 megalitre threshold would provide choice to just 2,000 non-domestic customers compared with the 30,000 in the first phase of competition in the energy sector. Perhaps the Minister will be good enough to explain why that is so.
If the threshold was set at 20 megalitres, about 5,500 customers would be eligible, rising to about 12,000 if set at 10 megalitres. Customers with water consumption of 20 megalitres pay bills of about £10,000 a year and those who use 10 megalitres about £5,000. As WaterVoice comments:
"We believe bills of this amount are large enough to make the prospects of a better deal in terms of price and service in a competitive market attractive to these customers".
It worries that new entrants will not be attracted and wants a 10 millilitre threshold.
I understand the need for extra caution with water because of public health concerns but that does not dictate a particular threshold number. There is also the need to do nothing to impair the viability of service
208
providers as competition is rolled out. So there are costs and benefits and, as the Minister has said, a balance to be struck—again I quote from his letter of 22nd May—
"which allows the increase of competitive activity in a controlled manner to ensure that the regulatory regime is robust, and the effects of competition are consistent with a sustainable water industry".
I anticipate that the Minister will not feel able to accept the amendment although perhaps when he replies he will make clear when the threshold level will be reviewed, and by whom, and whether he can say that it need not last for ever. I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I have an amendment grouped with the one we are discussing to which I should like to speak. I want to hear the Minister say a little more about the threshold limits. They are set at a level which results in competition not being a reality for most consumers. There is a vast amount of water regulation relating to competition when that is not a reality.
What happens when a 50 megalitre user becomes more efficient in his use of water and becomes a 10 megalitre user? Does the Bill provide for that? We have talked a lot about efficiency and we have heard some good examples of companies that have saved vast amounts of water but does that mean that they can no longer enjoy the possibility of choosing between suppliers? At the moment we are dubious that the current proposals will stimulate any energy savings or produce innovations. The proposals certainly allow new entrants to cherry pick the larger use customers that they will supply.
Under the proposals in the Bill there is a perverse incentive for new entrants to select customers that are cheap to supply so, far from benefiting all customers, that may well have a negative effect on existing suppliers' finances and increase customers' bills. I should like to hear the Minister's comments on those issues. I have become more concerned about the matter as the Bill has progressed through its stages.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I express my concerns and reservations about these two amendments. My reservations are not just my own but are shared by the National Consumer Council, which does not support the amendments. My fear is that the more the numbers are increased to go into competition, the greater the likelihood of the increase in domestic bills. If people keep being taken out of the existing system, obviously the cost to those left in the system will increase. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say. The National Consumer Council believes that the initial 50 megalitre threshold for competition for large users is set at the right level and should not be lowered at this early stage. The legislation provides for the threshold to be varied by regulation in Schedule 4, under proposed new Section 17D(8), once the effects of competition are better understood.
Although household customers enjoy some protection from the additional costs of the introduction of the competition regime, it is generally

209
agreed that the bills of household customers will rise. The costs of the competition have yet to be quantified, but will include existing supplier revenue losses, the development of access codes, the increased regulatory pressures, IT systems, data management and the increased cost of capital. The consumer council firmly believes that the 50 megalitre threshold should be tested and the impact of the competition on household customers fully assessed before any moves are made to lower the threshold for water competition. We share its concerns.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, noble Lords who have spoken recognise that this is our initial move into competition, and it is a cautious one. It seeks to balance the aim of creating opportunities for competition with other, wider government objectives including public health, the effect on smaller domestic and commercial consumers, and protecting the wider environment. We consulted pretty widely on the threshold to be chosen. Although there were different views, the majority favoured a threshold of 50 megalitres or higher. That included the Environment Agency and the Drinking Water Inspectorate, with its concerns and responsibilities, as well as the National Consumer Council, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, referred.
Reducing the 50 megalitres to 25 or 10 megalitres would not fundamentally change the range of customers eligible, but it has a greater risk of impacting on the other objectives and other customers. Concern for any knock-on effect on the bills of smaller consumers must be greater where the threshold was moved down, particularly if it were moved down rapidly to the 10 megalitre level.
Nevertheless, this is the start of a process, and we have plans in place to review the competition framework once it is in operation and its effects can be assessed. At Second Reading, I said that there would be a review of the whole competition framework within three years of its operation, to answer my noble friend on time scale. At that point, the Government will ask all three regulators—Ofwat, the water inspectorate and the Environment Agency—to report on the effectiveness of the regime. That will include reference to the threshold. The mechanism for changing the threshold is in the Bill, and the parliamentary process is the affirmative resolution.
We certainly foresee the ability to reduce the threshold of such an order. However, we do not think it sensible. It is prudent to go in at the 50 megalitre mark and review the situation in three years' time. I hope that neither my noble friend nor the noble Baroness will pursue their amendments, in recognition that the Bill provides for change in future.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that comment, and other noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. I must say to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, with the deepest respect, that I find her remarks quite amazing. I find it quite extraordinary for the party that put water
210
privatisation on the statute book, the better to deliver competition and to give a better service to consumers, now to argue that it did not really mean that but meant limited competition instead.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, actually I did not say that at all. We are dealing with the Bill, which at the moment has taken out a lot of people from the original water supply system in the licences, so far as farming and agriculture are concerned. We are looking at the suggestion in the Bill that in the early stages there is a limit. That seems sensible; the noble Lord says that it is not. If we took matters to that extent, I should say that there should be no limit whatever, and I hope that he is not suggesting that.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: Well, my Lords, it is not my memory that, when the government whom the noble Baroness supported went ahead with water privatisation, any limit was put on competition. I understand the reasons that my noble friend gives for being cautious about the introduction of the competition. To claim to be on the side of the consumer when that never crossed the minds of anyone who privatised what I would argue—I do not want to start the argument tonight, but merely to mention it in passing—
Baroness Byford: My Lords—
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, I shall give way in a moment. Some of us regard water, as with other utilities, as a natural monopoly, but the point of saying, "No, we don't believe that", has been crossed and we have gone somewhere up that road. That is where the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and I agree. The classic answer is, "You can't be a little bit pregnant".
Baroness Byford: My Lords, the noble Lord may be going down the line of a Commons debate in style. I do not agree with what he has said at all. As I said, we are dealing with the Bill as it stands at present. It would be foolish not to listen to what others have to say. One could say that one believed in something five minutes ago, and would never change one's view—never. That is a foolish thing to say as well. I hope that he would at least acknowledge that I have repeated what the National Consumer Council has said, so I think that his remarks are a little out of order.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I remind noble Lords that we are on Report speaking to the amendment. With the greatest respect, it is not my job to judge between the red corner and the blue corner, particularly when people are waiting for the Unstarred Question.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, I do not want to prolong matters. I simply make the point that the assertion is made by the National Consumer Council, and picked up by the noble Baroness, that complete competition would mean higher bills for

211
consumers The whole basis for water privatisation was that competition would lower prices. That is all that I am drawing attention to, but let us not delay on it. It is an assertion by the National Consumer Council that is not proven. I understand its concern about it, and of course about those in water poverty, but it is a big assertion for it to make.
The point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, about encouraging efficiency in the industry and then, in terms of how the Bill stands, perhaps getting rid of the trap of punishing people who are efficient and reduce water consumption—that is what we want—is one to which I hope the new body will pay some attention.
I thank the Minister for making it clear that the threshold will be reviewed within three years. To that extent, it can be changed and we can introduce more competition over time. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 117 not moved.]
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving the Motion I suggest that the Report stage begin again not before 8.40 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Burma
7.39 p.m.
Baroness Cox Baroness Cox rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what their response is to recent developments in Burma (Myanmar).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am most grateful to all noble Lords who are participating in this debate. The evidence of such widespread concern will be a great comfort to the people of Burma, suffering for so long at the hands of a brutal regime, many of whom feel forgotten by the international community. I should say that I was struck last night by a virulent virus. If I should have to leave the Chamber temporarily, I hope that your Lordships will understand.
The military junta, with its Orwellian name, the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) has recently incurred criticism for its re-arrest of the valiant Aung San Suu Kyi, leader of the peaceful democratic party, the National League for Democracy, which won over 80 per cent of the seats in the 1990 election. On 12th June, the United States Secretary of State, Colin Powell, took a virtually unprecedented step, writing a devastating critique in the Washington Post of the SPDC's attack on Aung San Suu Kyi. Entitled,
"It's Time to Turn the Tables on Burma's Thugs",
it outlines measures which should be taken against the SPDC, such as freezing its financial assets, banning remittances to Burma so that the regime cannot benefit from the foreign exchange, and placing restrictions on travel-related transactions that benefit the SPDC and its supporters. Will Her Majesty's Government be supporting similar measures against the SPDC?
While the treatment of Aung San Suu Kyi is deplorable and worthy of the strongest possible reaction, her voice has still been heard, even during long years of house arrest; and there are many influential voices who speak on her behalf.
But less often heard are the voices of the ethnic minorities—Karen, Karenni, Shan, Chin, Kachin, Mon, Arakan and others. Hundreds of thousands are suffering and dying from brutal policies, including military attacks on civilian villages, the destruction of homes and crops, forced labour in conditions so harsh that many perish, systematic rape, use as human minesweepers, forced relocations, denial of access to food or medical supplies and the displacement of over a million people.
I have had the privilege of visiting some of these people inside Burma and those who have had to flee to camps in Thailand in order to survive. It is their voices which I wish to be heard tonight and their suffering I wish to highlight, because their predicament is desperate and many more will die if the SPDC is allowed to continue its brutal policies.
Since 1996, the Burma army has destroyed at least 2,350 villages. There are over 110,000 refugees in Thailand, at least 1 million internally displaced people in eastern Burma, and perhaps 2 million in the whole country. Some are held in 176 SPDC-controlled relocation—or "concentration"—camps, but hundreds of thousands are hiding in the jungle, with little access to food, medicine or shelter and at great risk of attack from the SPDC.
The SPDC also uses child soldiers. The recent Human Rights Watch report, My Gun Was As Tall As Me, concludes that Burma has more child soldiers than any other country in the world. Of about 350,000 troops, as many as 70,000—20 per cent—are children. The findings of Christian Solidarity Worldwide corroborate this report. I have spoken with some of these child soldiers, who escaped at great risk. Their stories are deeply disturbing. One former Burmese boy soldier said that out of 1,750 new soldiers in a training camp, 1,000 were children; another boy said that out of 250 new recruits, he saw 100 children; a third boy said that in his unit of 30 soldiers, 15 were children.
Almost all the former child soldiers interviewed had been picked off the street, from bus stops or on their way home from school, by Burmese soldiers. Their parents do not know what has happened to them and the conditions in which they are kept are brutal. Beatings are common. One young boy, Nay, was beaten several times, once so badly that he could not walk for a week. Another young boy said that he had been beaten on one occasion by nine men because he had been late for a line-up. If they are lucky, they

213
manage to escape, though at great risk. Nay said he escaped because, "I could not bear the torture any more".
Then there is the policy of so-called "Burmanisation" or "cultural genocide". One Chin leader told us that the Chin language has been removed from the school curriculum. It is illegal to publish a Chin language Bible—although the Chin are 90 per cent Christian—and even Burmese language Bibles cannot be freely circulated in Chin state. A Chin leader said:
"Religious persecution happens on a daily basis".
In every major Chin town or village it was usual practice for the Chin to erect a Christian cross. But the SPDC has destroyed most of these crosses and replaced them with statues of Buddha. Fertile land farmed by the Chin has often been taken and given to Burmans from central Burma. "It is a systematic campaign by the SPDC", the Chin leader explained. "When people lose their culture and traditions, they lose what they are campaigning for".
Reports have emerged from Karenni state that Burma army soldiers are offered incentives to marry Karenni Christian women. In Shan and Karen areas, according to Burma Issues, there is,
"a military policy which stipulates an order by which Burmese soldiers are told to marry ethnic women—the obvious intention being that if killing and guns can't get rid of them then breeding them out will. Not only will it physically dilute the ethnic races into oblivion but it would also succeed in eradicating the culture and identity of the ethnic groups".
The United States report on religious freedom in 2002 ranked Burma among the six worst countries. Christians among the Chin, Kachin, Karen and Karenni are particularly targeted, and churches are often destroyed or turned into Buddhist temples. Buddhists suffer too. The mainly Buddhist Shan, the Buddhists among the Karen and Karenni, and the majority Buddhist Burmans are oppressed and persecuted. The Muslim Rohingyas in Arakan state are suffering as much as those on Burma's eastern borders. According to Refugees International, Burma's citizenship law denies the Muslim Rohingyas citizenship. Confiscation of Rohingya land is commonplace, and the Rohingya are prohibited from leaving their villages to access markets, employment, education and medical care.
May I therefore ask the Minister four questions? First, what measures have Her Majesty's Government taken, or do they intend to take, to increase pressure on the SPDC to end its persecution of the ethnic minorities and to enter into dialogue with them and with the National League for Democracy? The ethnic minorities and the NLD have repeatedly emphasised their desire for peaceful dialogue.
Secondly, in some of our discussions with ethnic minority leaders, they have expressed an interest in holding such a dialogue in a third country, with the hosts acting as mediators. Thailand has been mentioned as a country which might be able to provide valuable assistance in this way. Might Her Majesty's Government consider encouraging such an initiative if it is felt to be appropriate by all parties involved?
Thirdly, will Her Majesty's Government try to encourage the international community to speak with a more united voice? The European Union and the USA have introduced some economic sanctions and political pressure, but the effect of such pressure is limited so long as the members of the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN), along with China, Japan, Australia and India, continue their own policy of "constructive engagement" and "non-interference". Will Her Majesty's Government try to encourage those governments to use their influence to bring pressure to bear on the SPDC?
Finally, what are the Government's priorities for international development with regard to Burma? Can the Minister confirm that Her Majesty's Government have recently provided 281,600 dollars for environmental projects in Burma, including 192,000 dollars for a bat conservation project in Karen state? If that is the case, what is the explanation for this policy when there are over a million IDPs bereft of food, medicines or shelter? Do the Government intend to provide any direct cross-border assistance to the over a million IDPs inside Burma?
Burma is ruled by a regime which has wrecked the country's economy and rules by fear. Yet the people know that foreign investment will not help them. Mahn Sha, general secretary of the Karen National Union, emphasises that the SPDC uses the money from foreign investors,
"to buy fighters, tanks, artillery, and with these weapons they kill, rape and destroy Karen people, they take people for forced labour and forced relocation, they oppress our people—and all the people of Burma—in many ways".
Sanctions may create more economic hardship, but the ethnic minorities and the pro-democracy groups believe that they will suffer anyway—and that sanctions at least stand a chance of cutting off the regime's support and forcing it to the negotiating table.
Peoples such as the Karen and Karenni valiantly supported the British in the past. Many speak with affection but are now expressing sad disillusion. "The British betrayed our trust", said an elderly Karen man who had served with the Allies in Burma in the Second World War. When asked why the Karen had been so loyal to the British, his response was simple: "Because we were foolish".
I hope that the Minister's answers tonight will give hope to the Karen and others who served our country so loyally and so bravely at our time of need, so that we will not be seen to be betraying them in their hour of greatest need.
7.49 p.m.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I warmly congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, on initiating this debate and on the eloquent and moving speech she made. The noble Baroness has given us a flavour of the sort of country that Burma has become. Here is an extract from the newsletter of the Alternative ASEAN network on Burma, dated 11th June. It concerns what happened on 30th May:

215
"Black Friday, May 30, and the ensuing crackdown has been the most ruthless and bloodiest attack on the democracy movement in Burma since the 1988 massacre. Five hundred to 1,000 USD A members, police, men dressed as monks, armed soldiers and prisoners ambushed hundreds of unarmed NLD supporters, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and the NLD team with lethal weapons: guns, sharpened bamboo stakes, catapults, and iron and steel pipes. Hundreds have been arrested, killed and are missing. Reportedly 65 bodies were secretly cremated in the Northwest Military Command compound. Scores of people are missing".
A similar and even more graphic account is given by Mr John Jackson, director of The Burma Campaign UK, who has written to a number of Members of this House. Your Lordships may remember that I asked a topical question about the arrest and detention of Aung San Suu Kyi in this House last Wednesday. I was pleased to receive a robust and helpful reply from my noble friend Lady Symons of Vernham Dean.
However, one of the strongest points that Mr Jackson makes in the letter which I received from him yesterday is that the "brutal general"—his words—who rules Burma, Than Shwe, is not a man who worries about strong diplomatic language. However, he is a man who worries about economic sanctions. Mr Jackson says:
"His regime earns most of its income from foreign investment and a few key exports, such as oil, gas and gems. Income from these sectors has helped the regime double the size of the army to half a million soldiers".
So the ideal would be the introduction of world-wide economic sanctions imposed by the Security Council of the United Nations. If that cannot quickly be achieved, an investment ban should be imposed by the European Union. At the very least, the United Kingdom should implement such a ban.
The involvement of British companies in propping up the Burmese regime is particularly deplorable. One of those is British American Tobacco whose deputy chairman, Kenneth Clarke, MP, in a private letter, described the junta as "an extremely unpleasant regime". This regime is a 40 per cent shareholder in BAT's Burma subsidiary, Rothmans of Pall Mall Myanmar. So far, BAT has shown no willingness to follow other British companies such as Premier Oil in selling its investment in Burma.
Another company which appears to care nothing about human rights in the country where it is making money is Orient-Express, the luxury train and ship operator. The brochure which I read on its website this morning almost parodies itself. Here are some examples:
"Few places on earth remain untouched in their natural beauty and charm from one century to the next. The ancient land of Burma, now known as Myanmar, is however an exception to the rule, and we bring you the best of this fascinating, unspoilt country. The people of Myanmar love to celebrate and throughout the year find endless reasons for frivolity and festivities.
"Myanmar was once one of Asia's most inaccessible countries. Having turned its back on the world, Myanmar escaped the excesses of commercialisation. As a result, the country has retained an enviable way of life from which we can all learn".
That way of life from which we can all learn presumably includes introducing forced labour for millions of men, women and children, the use of rape
216
as a weapon of war against ethnic women and children, the death of one in 10 babies before their first birthday, becoming one of the largest illegal producers of illegal opium and heroin, denying an elected party its right to govern and imprisoning its internationally revered leader, and reducing one of the richest countries in Asia to one of the poorest in the world. There is quite a lot to learn from there, my Lords.
I assume that before British people sign up for these very expensive holidays in Burma, they check with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office whether it is a good idea to go there. I regret that if they rely on the country advice on the FCO website they will not receive much help. The summary does mention Black Friday and it says that,
"the situation is uncertain and tense".
But the opening words are:
"The majority of visits to Burma are trouble free".
Nowhere on the website is there a reference to Aung San Suu Kyi's plea to westeners not to visit as tourists, to her recent arrest and detention, or to her role as the legitimate elected leader of the Burmese people. Indeed, she is not mentioned at all.
The FCO website is less helpful and explicit than it was when this House debated Burma in October 2000. At that time it contained a link to the letter which the late Derek Fatchett wrote to the chairman of the Association of British Travel Agents drawing ABTA members' attention to the request of pro-democracy leaders for Britons to boycott Burma as a tourist destination. It would be a small but significant step if, when my noble friend replies, she could indicate that a suitable "Don't visit Burma on human rights grounds" message could be restored to the FCO's country advice website.
7.55 p.m.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, in endorsing every single word that the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, has just expressed, perhaps I may also associate myself with what the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, said in initiating tonight's timely debate. Her own personal example and her courage and bravery in raising this issue again and again in your Lordships' House is an inspiration to us all.
The Burmese military's decision to re-arrest Aung San Suu Kyi has thrown back into sharp relief the policies of the Burmese military junta. It is every bit as brutal towards its own citizens as the regime that terrorised Iraq, and the world needs to be much clearer about how it will deal with the systematic atrocities and the depredations in Burma. I particularly welcome the very strong statement by the American Administration last week and the statements coming out of the American Congress, which I hope we shall take the opportunity tonight to endorse.
To date, as the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, said, relatively little interest has been shown in the genocide perpetrated by the Burmese military and which western governments, as we heard as recently as Question Time in your Lordships' House again last Wednesday, have been very reluctant to name as such.

217
In the spring, I travelled again to the Burma border under the auspices of the Jubilee campaign. I was accompanied by Congressman Joseph Pitts. We saw there some of the victims of the terrible atrocities that have been referred to this evening. They include relatives of those who have faced summary executions, rape, forced relocations, destruction of villages, destruction of food stores and crops, and the use of forced labour.
More than 650,000 Karen, Karenni and Shan have been internally displaced. More than 200,000 refugees have fled to neighbouring Thailand. Many displaced people are hiding in the jungle with little or no food or medicine, and they are usually shot on sight by Burmese troops. I can think of no other country where so many displaced people are being subjected to a shoot-on-sight policy, yet Her Majesty's Government and the international community continue to pay relatively little attention to the desperate plight of the Karen, Karenni and Shan.
Perhaps I may relate the story of one small child whom I met at a refugee camp near Mae Sot. It illustrates how the brutality and violence of this perfidious regime continues. Saw Naing Gae is just eight years old. He saw the Burmese military shoot dead his mother and his father. He was then trafficked across the border into Thailand and sold to a Thai family. Deeply traumatised, he managed to escape and made his way to the camp where he is staying with a group of 30 other orphans. Every trace: of joy and innocence had been stamped out of him; and all that by the age of eight.
Saw Naing Gae squatted alongside four other children when I met him. Those other children—brothers and sisters—had seen their parents brutally murdered as well. The oldest girl, aged 12, is now head of their family, and she dissolved into tears as she recounted their story.
Unlike Saw Naing Gae, Naw Pi Lay did not survive. Aged 45, the mother of five children and pregnant with her sixth, she was murdered in June last year by the Burmese militia. During a massacre in the Dooplaya district of the Karen state, 12 other people were killed, including children aged 12, seven, five and two. That is not anecdote. It is carefully documented and I sent the documentation to Her Majesty's Government on my return in the spring.
In Chiang Mai I met the authors of a meticulous 120-page report on the Burmese military regime's use of sexual violence in the Shan state over the past six years. The report of the Shan Human Rights Foundation and Shan Women's Action Network, Licence To Rape, details how rape has been used as a weapon of war. Sexual violence, especially widespread gang rape, has terrorised and humiliated communities, flaunting the power of the regime and "rewarding" troops and demoralising resistance forces. The truth is that the Burma junta has turned its country into one vast concentration camp.
218
At Mae Sot, we took evidence from the Committee for Internally Displaced Karen People. It provided me with more than 100 pages of carefully documented examples of human rights violations committed by Burmese military over the past 12 months alone.
Even if the British Government refuse to accept that genocide is taking place, as they have done in the past, it should be obvious to even the most casual observer that war crimes are being inflicted on the Karen, Karenni and Shan; that in itself should be enough to justify the setting up of an international criminal tribunal by the UN Security Council to try Burma's military regime.
With the recent crackdown against the National League for Democracy and the detention of Aung San Suu Kyi, the Italian under-secretary of state for foreign affairs, Margherita Boniver, said that the European Union will be considering in detail the possibility of submitting the issue to the UN Security Council. Italy will take over the presidency of the European Union this month, so I hope that when the Minister replies, she will tell us that the Government will give their full support to the initiative.
To conclude, the Government should ban all new investment by British companies, as the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, argued. It should also call on the Security Council to set up an international criminal tribunal to try the Burmese regime for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. I hope that the Minister will answer the question that I put last Wednesday at Question Time; if this is not genocide, what is?
8.1 p.m.
Viscount Slim: My Lords, I must agree with what the noble Baroness and the two noble Lords have said. I want to consider one or two other aspects.
There is no doubt that a military government who rule by tyranny, lies, spies and torture can never gain the confidence, pride or loyalty of the people. That is extremely stupid because the greatest resource in Burma is the people; they are a marvellous people. They have initiative when they are free, and could be educated; they are good at business and the country will turn.
What most perturbs me is the attitude of outside countries towards the junta. The junta does not involve a pleasant or good set-up, but to keep slanging it is perhaps not the best way forward. We need to engage with it and, as they say, to get stuck into it. Merely making rude remarks is not the best approach.
In my experience from other parts of the world, in any government and military junta there are internal schisms. If we could get in among the junta and talk, we might find that people in it hold different views, although they enjoy the perks that go with the job. For that reason, I say to the Minister—I believe that she will agree—that we have an outstanding ambassador in Rangoon (Yandong) and a very small staff. I do not expect her to answer my point but I hope that she will take note of it. I wonder, for the task that we have, whether our embassy is set up to deal with a very

219
difficult situation. I leave that point at that; there could be some improvement. A penny-pinching attitude, from which we all suffer today, is not the right way to go about an embassy in Rangoon, particularly now. I say that because every Burmese one meets, whether he is outside the country or inside it—I have knowledge of both—expects us, the British, to take a lead in fighting for his freedom and allowing democracy to take its course.
I understand—the Minister may correct me—that a mission from Europe will go to the country shortly. If it is of any help, I respectfully say that I hope that the mission will not be enormous. I hope that the mission will be small and very well targeted when it meets the junta, and that the team that is going out will have clear objectives. The aims and objectives should be properly settled among the team before it arrives.
I hope that we, the British, will take some part in that and that we will take a lead for the reasons that I gave. The frightened, beaten and cowed population of Burma today look to us to help them. It would be very wrong of us if we did not take a prime role in ensuring the future democracy of Myanmar.
Tan Sri Razali Ismail, the United Nations representative, is having great difficulty getting to see the military junta and Daw Suu Kyi. I do not believe that that has been mentioned; the noble Baroness may have done so. We must support him in every way; he has the most difficult job. In my conversations with him in Kuala Lumpur, it was clear that he has a tough assignment and needs every help. We, the British, know how to help him.
One cannot help but admire Daw Suu Kyi. I understand, after Mr Razali met her—after great difficulty—that she is supposed to be in a government guest house and well looked after. Do we have any news on where she actually is? Is she safe? I have known too many nations of this ilk that have referred to a government guest house when it is really a dungeon.
A further matter—I hope that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, in view of all its different responsibilities, will put Burma, or Myanmar, high on its list.
8.7 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, I shall differ to some degree from the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, much as I respect his special knowledge. Something must be done to secure the freedom, and the freedom to contribute to the political life of her country, of that remarkable woman Aung San Suu Kyi. Here is a Nobel prizewinner, the leader of a party elected by the people by an overwhelming majority 13 years ago, and still widely supported, held as a prisoner by a ruthless, unelected and antediluvian military junta. This was a cynical but not unexpected act by a government which feels threatened by any sign of political freedom.
The EU moved, rightly, to secure and agree a common position which limits travel abroad by the junta and intends to freeze their assets outside the
220
country. I was glad to hear, I am ashamed to say for the first time, that there is to be an EU mission there. If we are to judge by similar procedures on Zimbabwe this is unlikely to prove effective. Meanwhile the Secretary of State has expressed our grave concern to the Burmese Ambassador in London and I am delighted to see that the US has put in place some strong sanctions. I hope that we shall imitate them as far as we can.
The Burmese generals have defied the UN by putting into custody the one political leader who has true and widespread popular support. The only people that she needs protection from are the tyrants who seized her with violence. Unfortunately, although the EU and the UN can, and I hope will, use economic and political pressure to some degree, those best placed to act politically are the ASEAN powers and China. Burma will take over the presidency of ASEAN in 2006. What can the UK, the UN and the EU do to cause ASEAN to act to bring about Aung San Suu Kyi's immediate release and the resumption of talks in a safe situation? I entirely agree that it would be appropriate for the ASEAN countries to be speaking behind the scenes. That is what I hope they are doing, but we need to be sure that they are doing that. We have seen in Zimbabwe that we tend to hide behind the idea that quiet diplomacy must not be interrupted and embarrassed by any public acts. In this case our country needs to be as public as possible.
Economic prosperity, political stability and the rule of law in Burma can only be in the interests of her neighbours and of ASEAN, but that begs the question of the agenda of the opium traders and of some oil and gas producers and consumers. We could do something there. The military regime in Burma lives by the profits it makes from the production of opium and the manufacture of heroin and amphetamines. There is evidence that the Chinese are playing an active part inside Burma in the extraction of heroin from opium. The noble and brave Baroness, Lady Cox, has testified many times to what this beastly regime is doing to its people while, with all the immense revenues that they are securing, they are providing no schools, no clinics and no medical care. They rule by violence, and they are turning the people into addicts. Long-term damage will be very hard to put right. That is where I differ from the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, in that we have to be heard to be speaking out by the people of Burma.
I hope the Government can tell us tonight that we shall be strongly supporting the Americans and urging the Security Council to withdraw the UN representative if Aung San Suu Kyi is not instantly released, and allowed to resume her constructive political dialogue with the regime. I support the idea of some kind of human rights tribunal, but in my experience, that is a long way off. Efforts to secure action to help the people of Zimbabwe, suffering under a similar murderous regime, have been thwarted in the UN by the concerted action of the African Union. I hope the many countries who condemn the Burmese junta will combine to cause the ASEAN countries, and especially China, to act against Burma, both through the UN and separately. It is not enough for ASEAN

221
just to call for the release of Aung San Suu Kyi. She must be free to resume her political activities. As for the UN, there is little point in a vast. international organisation if it cannot protect the weak and the victims of tyranny or, at any rate, be seen to try to do so.
Quiet diplomacy is much too comfortable. If the UN allows its representatives to be flouted, as Mr Razai: has been, it is buying time for the junta to get away with total inaction. Mr Razai: represents a world organisation, and he should have been asked to refuse publicly to accept anything but the instant release into his care of Aung San Suu Kyi. Who could speak for the people of Burma, if not the UN? We and the Americans must, with the EU, immediately act to cut off the overseas resources of the junta, bring pressure to bear on the oil companies and the users of Burma's oil and gas, and try to secure some action from China. That will probably have to be done behind the scenes.
It is a mockery to have an international body such as the UN, which includes an expensive Human Rights Commission, and which purports to stand for the freedom of peoples to choose their governments and to live in peace, doing nothing visible and effective. That is largely because such groups as the African Union, although I hope not ASEAN, are not prepared to act or to allow action against members of the new trade union of selfish, third world leaders who care very little about their people and a lot about the personal power of the leaders themselves.
We have a particular duty to press for this, because we should never forget the courageous behaviour of our wartime allies in Burma, especially the Karen. I heard them described only yesterday by an old friend, who was once a young officer in the 14th Army in Burma, fighting the Japanese, as the bravest people he ever knew, loyal and steadfast beyond belief. We must not fail if there is anything we could do to give them a voice, and free them from a tyranny that does not even pretend to be caring for its people.
8.14 p.m.
Lord Chan: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, on introducing this timely debate on Burma. We should remember that the country has been suffering from internal warfare and military oppression for more than 30 years.
Last Thursday, the democratically elected leader of Burma, Aung San Suu Kyi, celebrated her. 58th birthday in prison. She has been either under house arrest or confined in prison for most of the past 14 years. The National League for Democracy, the political party she leads, has been banned for the same period.
Elected members of parliament and other pro-democracy supporters have been forced to flee. Many of those who stayed were arrested, tortured or killed by the military dictatorship. Burma's military dictatorship spends more than half the national budget on arms while the people of Burma live in poverty. Apart from ruling Burma without a mandate, the army has adopted a strategy for destabilising and
222
terrorising the ethnic minority populations, as has been described by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. I have visited Mizoram whose people, the Mizos, also live in northern Burma.
The Karen people, living in a discrete state bordering Thailand, have been savagely treated. The Burmese army assaults Karen villages with mortars and machine gun fire, setting homes on fire and looting the possessions of these poor villagers. Landmines are then scattered around the village, forcing their residents to flee. These atrocities are even worse because they affect mainly women and children. Women are murdered even when pregnant and children wounded and maimed by shrapnel from landmines.
The war is one of genocide and ethnic cleansing perpetrated by the army against ethnic minorities in Burma as well as anyone who supports and cares for these ethnic minorities. At any moment, all villagers can be uprooted and forced to flee their homes with only what is on their backs.
Families have been separated due to persecution by the army. As a consequence, the number of orphans, single-parent families and families with missing children has increased. Some Karen parents have seen their children burned alive by the army.
In addition to the statistics identified by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, more than 1 million refugees from Burma have fled to neighbouring countries. One hundred and fifty thousand are in refugee camps in Thailand and Bangladesh. The rest are scattered. In the camps, refugees have the opportunity for education beyond high school, and freedom from religious and other types of persecution. In the refugee camps, many non-governmental organisations are taking care of the health, food and other needs of the refugees. I declare my support for a Christian NGO based in Chiang Mai, Thailand, that devotes itself to helping ethnic minorities in Burma.
Ten ethnic minority groups in Burma joined to form the Ethnic Nationalities Consultation in November 2002 in order actively to work on the problems of narcotics, internally displaced people and human rights violations by the Burma dictators. But they need help from governments in Europe. As Her Majesty's Government have historic links with Burma, we should use them to influence the military rulers through dialogue and to urge the ASEAN countries to press Burma's military rulers to change their ways. If this does not lead to corrective action, I join other noble Lords in urging Her Majesty's Government to impose economic sanctions on Burma by advising British companies not to support the military government through trade, tourism and development aid.
8.18 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I join all noble Lords who have expressed congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox. As the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said, she is an inspiration to us all. I congratulate her on her timing in securing the debate because we are still

223
reeling with shock and dismay on hearing the dreadful news of the armed attack on Aung San Suu Kyi and her colleagues on 30th May. This appalling crime has been condemned throughout the world, including unprecedented statements from ASEAN and Beijing. However, exactly what happened is still unclear because Aung San Suu Kyi is being held incommunicado in the notorious Insein prison, according to the Foreign Office Minister, Mike O'Brien, whose forthright comments last Thursday we welcomed. The survivors are also in prison and cannot speak about their experiences.
We know that the government instigated the attack, as the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, explained, and that somewhere between 60 and 100 people were killed. Their bodies were burned and many were injured. Immediately afterwards, NLD offices throughout the country were closed and hundreds of supporters were arrested.
It is difficult to see how the policy of engagement advocated by the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, and pursued by the UN for the past two years can be continued in these circumstances. For example, before the International Labour Conference this month, the ILO had reached agreement with the Government of Myanmar for the appointment of a facilitator to assist the victims of forced labour, and for a plan of action which was to include a pilot road-building project, alternatives to the use of forced labour, and "information and awareness raising".
Can it be that in spite of the very slow progress by Myanmar towards compliance with the Forced Labour Convention, and despite the events of May 30th, the ILO intends to carry on with this programme? I might ask the same question of the UN office on drugs and crime, which has been co-operating with the Government of Myamnar in trying to eliminate the opium poppy cultivation on which 350,000 households rely for their main income, but which also provides a valuable source of revenue to the junta itself.
We note that the EU has imposed tighter sanctions, added some of the generals' cronies to the travel-ban list, and frozen some of their assets. These steps are welcome, but they are not proportionate to the regime's offences. This latest unprovoked assault comes on top of 13 years of oppression and persecution of the NLD—since the party won the 1990 election. There are 1,500 political prisoners, and hundreds of thousands of victims of the forced labour programme, and of the military operations against ethnic minorities which we have heard so vividly described. The programme of child soldiers is especially appalling and pernicious, and requires special attention when we decide what action we are to take. The junta has so far been impervious to the appeals of the UN Secretary-General, repeated again today, to release Aung San Suu Kyi and enter into a genuine political dialogue with the NLD. The UN special envoy, Mr Razali Ismail, has said that the only thing to make the generals sit up and listen would be the threat of UN sanctions, which have not been seen
224
as a practical option until now because of lack of support from China. However, many of your Lordships have said that the time has come when we should explore this possibility.
The situation may now have changed. We should at least try out a draft resolution on mandatory sanctions on other members of the Security Council to see whether we could get agreement on a measure that would cut off Burmese exports of textiles, energy, gems and timber, and block investment and tourism, all of which earn foreign currency for the regime while the people languish in misery. If we cannot get support for UN action, we should at least try to get a common policy on tougher measures with the United States and Japan.
8.22 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, the House will be grateful to my noble friend Lady Cox for raising again the important issue of Burma. Tonight the House has again united in supporting her.
Last month, with the vicious ambush described by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, Burma's military dictatorship ended any pretence that it was ever genuine about reform. I understand that Daw Suu Kyi is being held in a two-room hut in Insein Prison, Rangoon. James Mawdsley was kept in a building close to the huts for three months in 1998, and tells me that it was absolute hell. There is a world of difference between house arrest and Insein Prison. The ICRC is not allowed to visit Daw Suu Kyi, and itself does not know the exact number of people being detained so it has to accept the figure given by the SPDC.
Last December the Minister was commendably robust in her winding-up speech to another excellent debate on Burma. The House will be looking for some strong words again tonight. The time has come to turn up the pressure on the SPDC. Can the noble Baroness confirm that Her Majesty's Government have called for a full account of what happened that day; for Daw Suu Kyi and the other leaders of the NLD—gaoled by the SPDC before and after the attack—to be released from confinement of any kind; and for the NLD to be permitted to reopen their offices? The regime's strategy of re-arresting Daw Suu Kyi is to make her release, rather than democratic reform, the focus of international pressure. What assurance will the Government give that pressure will be stepped up if she is released but reform is not forthcoming?
We must take measures to cut off the regime's supplies and support without harming the people whom we are trying to help. The EU continues to lag far behind US policy. In 1997 the US banned all new investment in Burma. As my noble friend Lady Cox said, the US looks likely to impose new trade sanctions that would ban imports from Burma, extend the visa ban against those supporting the SPDC, freeze Burma's assets in US banks and require the Bush administration to oppose international loans to the country. The Senate vote on the sanctions legislation was 97 to one in favour—a greater cross-party consensus than on any other foreign

225
policy issue. Europe's feeble response, in contrast, has been to extend a visa ban and asset freeze against the regime.
The state department has already extended visa restrictions to include all officials of an organisation related to the junta—the Union Solidarity and Development Association—and the managers of state-run enterprises so that they and their families can be banned as well. Will Her Majesty's Government encourage the EU to place restrictions on travel-related transactions that benefit the SPDC and its supporters?
The US Government have also hinted that they will ask the UN Security Council to deal with the case of Burma. If the UK took the initiative at this stage, the added momentum might succeed in getting Security Council action on Burma. The UN envoy Razali has said publicly—the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, made this point—that the only thing that would make the generals sit up and listen is the threat of UN Security Council sanctions.
Will Her Majesty's Government, therefore, as a permanent member of the UN Security Council, take Burma to the council and push for the imposition of targeted sanctions to include an investment ban, an arms embargo and a ban on certain exports, including oil, gas, gems, minerals and garments?
Ending on a positive note, I welcome growing interest and measures taken by the outside world to curb the regime. Japan, Burma's largest single aid donor—excluding Rangoon's patron China—also warned it could cut off millions of dollars in assistance if the regime failed to free Daw Suu Kyi and take steps towards political change. The Association of South-East Asian Nations' unprecedented call for a "peaceful transition to democracy" in Burma is a break from the long-standing tradition of non-interference that has allowed Burma to participate in ASEAN meetings without concern that its poor human rights record or inept economic management would be criticised.
8.28 p.m.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble and brave Baroness, Lady Cox, for the opportunity that she has given us for a serious debate on the extremely grave situation in Burma and the Government's response to it. I fully agree with much of what has been said by noble Lords in a number of moving and passionate speeches.
When we last debated Burma in this House on 3rd December I referred to some very modest positive developments within the country and hoped that that would be a signal of further progress to follow. Sadly, that is not the case. Instead, senior general Than Shwe seems set on a course of negative, ham-fisted confrontation with the democratic opposition which will be of no benefit to the people of Burma whatever. As my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester so effectively described, the outrageous armed attack on Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy supporters on 30th May was clearly organised and perpetrated by elements of the military
226
regime. It was the culmination of several months of carefully orchestrated and well-documented violence and intimidation.
Credible eyewitness reports indicate that dozens of people were killed and many injured, far in excess of the official figures put out by the authorities—as the noble Lord, Lord Astor, mentioned. Since that event, scores of people, including members of the National League for Democracy, have been detained and many more are in hiding in fear of their lives. The regime also closed the offices of the NLD throughout Burma, and, temporarily, universities and schools.
As the noble Lords, Lord Avebury and Lord Astor, and other noble Lords said, we have received reliable reports that Aung San Suu Kyi is now being held in Rangoon's notorious Insein prison, under section 10(a) of the State Protection Law 1975. This draconian law allows for detention without access to family or lawyers for up to five years, with no appeal. This is a totally unacceptable way to treat anyone pursuing peaceful, political aims.
These reports make a mockery of the recent claims in Phnom Penh by the Burmese Foreign Minister that Aung San Suu Kyi is being detained simply for her own protection, and has led to our repeated calls for her immediate release, and the release of all political prisoners. On 19th June 2003, Aung San Suu Kyi's 58th birthday, my honourable friend Mike O'Brien repeatedly tried to telephone Aung San Suu Kyi but without success. The Deputy Foreign Minister was unwilling to talk to him. This further belies the claim that her detention is for her own protection. On 20th June he summoned the Burmese Ambassador and spoke in strong terms. He plans to see him again on 25th June.
The reasons for the regime's despicable actions are obvious. Since her release from house arrest in May 2002, Aung San Suu Kyi has made a number of trips around Burma to reopen closed NLD offices and open new ones. Wherever she has gone, thousands of supporters have turned out to greet her and listen to her speeches, despite harassment and threats from the regime and its paid thugs. The courage and support of those supporters has shown the military dictators that the results of the 1990 elections, the first for 30 years, when the NLD won a landslide victory, remain a true reflection of who should rightly be in power in Burma.
The regime's crass behaviour is sadly nothing new. Before her release last year, Aung San Suu Kyi had been under house arrest for a total of almost eight years. At the same time as attacking Aung San Suu Kyi and her supporters, and then gaoling her in its desperate efforts to remain in political power, the junta is also bankrupting the country's economy. As the noble Lord, Lord Chan, reminded us, Burma's health and education systems are in a terrible state because the regime invests so little in them. A total of just 0.5 per cent GDP was spent on both sectors in

227
1999–2000. The regime chose instead to spend what money it has on weapons and equipment for its 500,000 strong army. It is a stark example of how little the junta cares for the people of Burma.
It is tragic to see a beautiful country with so much potential brought to its knees by a lousy government. Burma was once rightly called "the rice bowl of Asia". Rangoon's university had a high reputation and attracted students from all over the region. Now students rarely turn up for classes. If they do, they risk finding the doors barred, as the military's knee-jerk reaction has been to close schools and universities whenever there is any sign of trouble.
As I stated in the December debate, human rights abuses, violence and repression continue throughout the country. As the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and the noble Lord, Lord Alton, reminded us, Burma's ethnic nationalities suffer in particular, whether they be Muslim Rohingyas, Christian Karen or Buddhist Shan. Religion is no bar to brutality in Burma. A wide range of international NGOs regularly publish credible accounts of rape; torture; extra-judicial killings; forced relocation; the use of child soldiers; forced labour; denial of assembly; denial of expression; denial of movement; and discrimination on the grounds of religion and ethnicity. These accounts are dismissed out of hand by the Burmese regime. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and other noble Lords, that we ensure that those reports are brought to the attention of the international community and the United Nations. The regime's commitment to the international values and human rights standards of the UN—an organisation once headed by a distinguished Burmese statesman, U That—is woefully inadequate. Successive UN resolutions condemning abuse, championed by the UK, have demonstrated that.
We sponsored the human rights resolution at the UNCHR in April 2003, condemning human rights violations in Burma and expressing concern over discrimination on the basis of religious and ethnic background. The UN Rapporteur on Human Rights in Burma, Sergio Pinheiro, has his work cut out. We fully support his efforts, and those of the International Labour Organisation, to get the regime to address the problems of forced labour through their resident representative in Rangoon.
The noble Baroness, Lady Park, and other noble Lords referred to the ASEAN countries. Even Burma's ASEAN neighbours are now recognising that the grave situation in Burma must be addressed. In an unprecedented move, and contrary to their earlier stance of non-interference, foreign ministers discussed the internal situation in Burma at their meeting in Phnom Penh on 17th June and called for the release of Aung San Suu Kyi and her NLD colleagues. In their final communique, they urged the Burmese regime to resume dialogue with all parties concerned to promote national reconciliation and a peaceful transition to democracy. They also reaffirmed support for the efforts of the UN Secretary-General's special representative, Tan Sri Razali Ismail. We welcome
228
very strongly ASEAN's statement. No-one in Phnom Penh was convinced by the claim of Burma's Foreign Minister that his government are still committed to dialogue and a transition to democracy.
I assure the noble Viscount, Lord Slim, who speaks with great experience on this grave matter, that the UK remains at the forefront of international action in continuing to press for the return of human rights and democracy to Burma. We work very closely with our EU partners. The EU's core policy on Burma is contained in a common position, first agreed in 1996. It includes an arms embargo, a ban on defence links, a ban on high-level bilateral government visits, a ban on non-humanitarian aid, a ban on the supply of equipment that might be used for internal repression or terrorism, and an asset freeze and visa ban on members of the regime and military. In response to the current situation, the EU Foreign Ministers agreed on 16th June to introduce further measures extending the visa ban and assets freeze on members of the regime, their families and associates, and tightening the arms embargo.
We fully, actively and loudly support the excellent work carried out by the UN Secretary General's special representative to Burma, Tan Sri Razali Ismail. We remain very active in seeking to persuade Burma's neighbours, China, India and Thailand, as well as Japan and other relevant countries around the world, to do what they can to bring pressure to bear on the regime to change its ways.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and other noble Lords mentioned the hard-hitting article by Colin Powell. President Bush also criticised the Burmese regime and asked whether we would endorse the strong criticism by the US. On behalf of the Government, I very much welcome that strong engagement by the United States.
The UK does not encourage trade, investment or any tourism in Burma. My noble friend Lord Faulkner asked about the Government's position on BAT. I am pleased to tell him that my honourable friend Mike O'Brien will be meeting the chairman of BAT very soon to discuss the situation.
Noble Lords asked a number of questions which I shall rapidly go through; in respect of those which I do not get to I shall ensure that noble Lords receive full written answers. The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked whether HMG are considering similar measures to those proposed by the US. We have no powers to impose unilateral financial sanctions except in limited cases where the target regime is taking or is likely to take action to the detriment of the United Kingdom. Sanctions should not be imposed merely as a symbolic gesture but should be designed to have real impact. That is why we prefer multilateral action.
The noble Baroness also asked about the proposal for Thailand to act as a mediator. The United Kingdom would encourage tripartite talks if all parties were genuinely represented and fully involved in the process. She also asked about pressure on ASEAN. I hope that I have covered that in my speech. In

229
particular, the noble Baroness criticised the funding of environmental projects. We currently provide funding through carefully selected agencies to protect and conserve biological and cultural diversity. It includes projects on wildlife, forest conservation and also on creating capacity within local communities in some of the poorest areas of Burma. In 2003–04, our assistance will amount to about £122,000. I shall ensure that the noble Baroness receives written answers for her other questions.
My noble friend Lord Faulkner criticised the Government on the basis of travel advice and the website. UK policy is not to support or encourage tourism in Burma. The FCO country profile on the website makes that clear. We bring attention to the human rights situation in Burma. However, the separate FCO travel advice must be objective, based on risks to British visitors and not used as a political device. I ask other noble Lords for their patience in waiting for written answers from me.
Finally, I repeat something that we have made very clear to the Burmese regime on many occasions. We stand prepared to respond proportionately and we support a genuine transition to civilian rule in Burma. We must start with the immediate release of Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, her fellow NLD detainees and all political prisoners. At the same time, the regime should be in no doubt about our resolve to press for further measures if these steps are not taken very soon.

Anti-social Behaviour Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and ordered to be printed.
Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) (No. 2) Bill
Brought from the Commons endorsed with the certificate of the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill, and read a first time.

Water Bill [H.L.]
8.44 p.m.
Further consideration of amendments on Report resumed on Schedule 4.
Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 118:
Page 134, line 42, at end insert—
"( ) the Consumer Council for Water;"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving the amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 121. The amendment is supported by the Liberal Democrat Benches. It asks that the consumer council for water should be included in Schedule 4.
Amendment No. 121 deals specifically with the codes and obligations that are to be placed on licensed water suppliers, affecting their conduct. I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, as the noble Baroness said, we have put our names to the amendments so obviously we support them.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, Amendment No. 118 would require the Secretary of State or the Assembly to consult the council when proposing to alter the eligibility threshold for competition. The Secretary of State and the Assembly are committed to full consultation on most of the decisions they make. In this case, other than the authority, which has to operate the competition regime, important parties such as the Drinking Water Inspectorate and the Environment Agency, which will be consulted along with the council, are also not listed in the Bill. There is no reason to single out the consumer council for water, especially when the effects of the competition threshold can be just as significant to the interests of the other regulators.
Amendment No. 121 proposes amendments to the clause on standard conditions of water supply licenses. While we agree with the principle that the council should be consulted where appropriate, we do not think the amendment is necessary. If obligations are being imposed, the proposals are likely to be a modification of the standard conditions themselves. Amendment No. 122, which we will be debating next, will ensure that the council is consulted in such cases.
If there were codes to aid or govern the practice of licensed suppliers, we would expect appropriate consultation. In most cases that would involve consultation with the council, but there may be technical issues where consultation with the council would not be required. It would be an unnecessary burden on the council and the authority to insist on inappropriate consultation.
The second part of the amendment would require directors or representatives of the companies that are licensed water suppliers to attend council committee meetings. That is not necessary. The current obligation for undertakers to attend committee meetings is included in the standard appointment condition and is therefore not covered in primary legislation. We would expect a similar licence condition to be applied to licensed water suppliers. That will be consulted on. For those reasons I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, will not press the amendment.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I want to tease out why the consumer council for water should not be mentioned in the Bill. The Bill is very technical, but water is a consumer issue. The consumer does not get much say in any of this. The consumer council for water is an important body. The current WaterVoice people are very helpful. They get deeply involved in all the issues of the organisation and they should be consulted.
I should also like an explanation from my noble friend Lady Byford of the use of the word "directors" in the second part of Amendment No. 121.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I could not agree more that the consumer council for water is

231
very important I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, would agree that it is also important to recognise the role of the Drinking Water Inspectorate and the Environment Agency. I hope that that answer satisfies the noble Baroness. If not, I would be only too pleased to clarify the position between now and the next stage.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, for that clarification. We continue to feel that the water council should be defined in the clause. She referred to the Drinking Water Inspectorate and the Environment Agency. If she feels that the consumer council, in having its name in the Bill, would take priority over those two bodies, perhaps the Government should consider adding all three names. In that way, all three bodies could be consulted. The noble Baroness suggested earlier that that was not necessary and that the bodies were already in the Bill.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I believe that I indicated that those bodies were included as appropriate, rather than as a blanket inclusion on every occasion.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I must reconsider the matter.
The Minister was unhappy about Amendment No. 121, especially paragraph (b), which deals with directors and other representatives. In answer to my noble friend Lady O'Cathain, when we drafted the amendment we had not specified whether the directors were executive or non-executive. That is something that I need to clarify.
I apologise to the House for being somewhat unprepared at the restart. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 119:
Page 136, line 19. at end insert—
"( ) on the Council;"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, noble Lords from the Opposition Benches have tabled amendments that are broadly similar to Government amendments. We said in Committee that we would consider such amendments alongside the intention to extend the council's remit to monitoring licensed water suppliers. We have considered the matter further and agree that the council needs to be kept informed of new and amended licences.
The government amendments differ from the otherwise identical amendments tabled by both opposition parties, in that we have used the term "Council", which is the shortened name of the consumer council for water throughout the Bill. Given that we all have the same objectives, I hope that noble
232
Lords will withdraw their amendments in favour of the Government's, in those cases where there is a slight difference in drafting or placement. I beg to move.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank the Minister for responding to the long discussions that we had in Committee. Brevity is always an advantage and, although I hate giving way, on this occasion the Government have the edge on us. We are quite happy to accept their amendments referring to the "Council", which obviously means the consumer council for water.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, we thank the Government for accepting our points.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 120 and 121 not moved.]
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 122:
Page 140, line 7, at end insert—
"( ) the Council;"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 123 not moved.]
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 124:
Page 140, line 46, at end insert—
"( ) the Council;"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 125 not moved.]
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 126:
Page 143, line 21, at end insert—
"( ) the Council;"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 127 not moved.]
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendments Nos. 128 and 129:
Page 146, line 33, at end insert—
"( ) the Council;"
Page 148. line 23, at end insert—
"( ) the Council;"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 130 not moved.]
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 131:
Page 150, line 23, at end insert—
"( ) the Council;"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 132 to 134 not moved.]
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 135:
Page 160, line 21, after "any" insert "quantifiable"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 135 seeks to insert the word "quantifiable" into the question of costs, which is what this particular part of the Bill deals with—costs as between water suppliers and water companies.
This is a slightly obscure but very important argument. I wish that I could abbreviate it but I regret that I cannot. A water undertaker—that is a major water company—loses a customer to a licensed water supplier who requests the undertaker to lay some pipes through which he will supply the undertaker's water to the undertaker's former customer. The undertaker is obliged to do so and charges the supplier accordingly. He is entitled to do so and that seems absolutely right.
But at that point the supplier can put up an argument to the effect that the charge is not payable as there are balancing items as follows. The customer is planning to expand his operation and the undertaker would have had to lay an additional pipe in any event. Moreover, there would have had to be an increase in water treatment capacity as the undertaker's pipes are all for domestic quality whereas the supplier, because of the nature of the customer, can use pipes of a lower quality and a lower standard because the customer does not need drinking water quality but he has had to have it because that was the only supply he could get.
This may sound like creative accounting gone mad but what we are dealing with is how we assess the nature of real costs. It is a complex question and the water undertaker could be obliged to pay costs which the water supplier could legitimately argue he would have had to undertake anyway. What we have sought to do is to insert a word which might help if one ever finds that kind of an argument arising between a water supplier and a water undertaker.
I am sorry that the matter is so complex; I wish that it were not. But unfortunately I see no way round the matter. I see immense scope for fruitful argument employing all kinds of experts for a long time at some point in the future. I hope very much that the Minister in his response will be able to clarify what: is otherwise a very unclear situation. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord's objectives but I do not think that the amendment is necessary. I understand the situation that he described. There could be all sorts of other complicated situations where one has to net off a cost or otherwise. I agree that only quantifiable benefits can be deducted from the undertaker's charges but they would have to be quantifiable if the regulator is able to identify them and calculate them. He will not be able to make a financial determination unless they are quantifiable. Therefore, the regulator is to a large extent already constrained by ensuring that the financial calculations can be made, so "quantifiable" is unnecessary in terms of determining what sum the regulator comes up with.
As in so many discussions that the noble Lord and I have, it would not do any harm to add what an amendment would add—"quantifiable" in this case—in normal parlance. However, the lawyers will always
234
say, "Don't use more words than you have to", although with a Bill this long he would be justified in challenging whether that was a general precept. Nevertheless, that is the view. If the sums are to be reduced to a financial calculation, clearly they have to be quantifiable in any case.
9 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his explanation. I am not sure that it takes us any further forward, as it seems that the argument will be able to go on in all its intricacy and detail for a considerable time in a number of such cases. That said, I am quite prepared to accept that "quantifiable" may not be the right word. It may be that we could find a better one, or a better way of making the point that we want to make. For now, I shall study his explanation with considerable care, think about it and see whether we can do anything at Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 136:
Page 161, line 8, leave out "Secretary of State" and insert 'Chief Inspector of Drinking Water"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment is grouped with Amendments Nos. 137 and 138. They all have the same effect, which is to leave out the Secretary of State. We have no particular wish to do him out of a job, but we think that the chief inspector of drinking water or the chief inspector of drinking water for Wales is more appropriate in this instance.
The amendment arises out of a debate on Amendment No. 168ZF, believe it or not, in Grand Committee on 10th April, as reported at col. GC 75. The Minister explained that the wording to which we had objected was a legislative drafting device to enable the authority to consult the Drinking Water Inspectorate, which reports to the Secretary of State. Clause 38 substitutes a new section in the Water Industry Act that specifically gives the Secretary of State or, as the case may be, the authority the powers and duties covered in that Act as general duties in respect of the water industry. It seems ridiculous to lay down such a general duties clause and then say that the authority cannot consult a department reporting to the Secretary of State without his specific permission.
We think that that is very peculiar. It is a very sophistic argument, and we think that our amendment would lead to a considerably clearer situation in the Bill. It would also leave the Secretary of State secure as a final court of appeal, so that if there were any need for such a thing we could speed up the clarification of complaints. If the Secretary of State were involved at an earlier stage, that would be more difficult. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord viewed the previous explanations as sophistry, but I agree that they are hugely legalistic. The problem is that the Drinking Water Inspectorate does not exist as a legal entity, and therefore cannot of itself have duties.The

235
Secretary of State has duties that are then conferred on the chief inspector of drinking water. Although one can designate in legislation the fact that the Drinking Water Inspectorate could be consulted, that does not impose a duty on it. It is a duty on someone else to consult it. The legal position is that duties cannot be conferred on something which does not have a legal personality. Hence the only way of doing it is to designate the Secretary of State. In commonsense terms, of course, there is a problem in that the Secretary of State can, in certain circumstances, appear later in some of the procedures. But we cannot so designate the Drinking Water Inspectorate under the current structure and conventions.
So while in a sense I accept the logic of the noble Lord's approach, I cannot accept the statutory form in which he is putting it.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, this is a legislative Chamber and it can establish the precedent that it wishes to establish. If it wants to establish the Drinking Water Inspectorate as a legal entity, surely it can do so. It may be that this amendment is not the appropriate way to do so and that a different amendment is required in order to achieve that, but I ask the Minister why that cannot be done. It seems to me that it would be helpful if it were done.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, it can, of course, be done, but it would require a definition of the inspectorate as a body with its own identity rather than an amendment in one particular respect. The noble Lord would therefore have to come forward or force the Government to come forward with a large number of substantive amendments. At the moment, the Drinking Water Inspectorate is part of the department and is no different from any other Civil Service branch which cannot be designated as a legal entity—the Secretary of State has to be designated in terms of defining the responsibility of the department.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I was flexible with my noble friend and with the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith. But this is Report stage; once the Minister sits down questions cannot be asked.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I accept the noble Baroness's rebuke. She is perfectly correct. But it does seem to me that we have an acknowledged anomaly, in the sense that the existing situation is not perfect, but we do not have the appropriate amendment to rectify it. The only question is, therefore, whether the Opposition have to carry out the task of drafting an appropriate amendment and almost certainly get it wrong, or whether we invite the Minister to tackle the issue and perhaps have cold towels round his drafting clerks for a number of nights, and they might or might not come up with the right answer, or might not be able to do it in the time available.
236
The only thing that seems certain in this situation is that the right thing for me to do at the moment is to withdraw the amendment. However, I should welcome an opportunity to discuss it with the Minister subsequently. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 137 and 138 not moved.]
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendments Nos. 139 and 140:
Page 164, line 23, leave out "a" and insert "the"
Page 165, line 13, leave out from "agreement" to end of line 15 and insert "for a supply of water in bulk"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 141:
Page 166, line 13, at beginning insert "shall lay a copy of the notice in each House of Parliament subject to objection within 40 days,"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment relates to prohibitions and exemptions. In Committee, we moved a series of amendments designed to probe the meaning of paragraphs 661 to 66K as laid down in Schedule 4. We were unhappy about the prohibition on the ability of water undertakers to prosecute anyone who used their systems to introduce water without permission. We were also unhappy that the Secretary of State could apparently authorise certain people or classes of people to make free of a water system.
The responses that we received were unsatisfactory. It has subsequently been pointed out to me that the negative procedure already exists, but I invite the Minister who will reply to point me to it in the Bill. That would be hugely helpful. I should be glad to have clarification from the Minister. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I fully understand that the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, seeks to ensure that the power to grant, by order, exemptions from the prohibition on persons supplying from or introducing water to the undertaker's supply system is subject to parliamentary scrutiny.
I can confirm that an order under this section is already subject to the negative resolution procedure under subsection (6) of new Section 66L on page 168 of the Bill. I am very pleased to have been able to reassure the noble Baroness. I trust that she will be happy with the reply and feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. It is quite difficult to get round the various parts of the Bill. However, with that confirmation, I am happy and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 8 [Minor and consequential amendments: licensing of water suppliers etc]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 142:
Page 184, line 36, at end insert—

237
"( ) Section 174 of the Water Act 1989 (c. 15) (general restrictions on disclosure of information) is amended as follows.
( ) In paragraph (b) of subsection (2), for "or a sewerage undertaker" there is substituted ", sewerage undertaker or company holding a licence under Chapter IA of Part 2 of the Water Industry Act 1991".
( ) In paragraph (c) of that subsection, for "203(1) or (2)" there is substituted "203(1), (IA), (2) or (2A)".
( ) In subsection (6)(a), after "sewerage undertaker" there is inserted ", or with the carrying on by a company holding a licence under Chapter IA of Part 2 of the Water Industry Act 1991 of activities under its licence,"."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 143:
Page 187, line 16, leave out sub-paragraph (4).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 143, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 144 and 145. The sub-paragraph in question allows a licensed water supplier to transfer to another company or companies sufficient of its activities to protect a strategic supply. That will be done under a special administration order.
I want to ask the Minister what safeguards there will be to ensure that the company receiving the privilege is worthy of it. Will the water undertaker play any part? The court may hear from the Secretary of' State or the authority in regard to the licensed water supplier, but will the court hear submissions from anyone with regard to the replacement? Surely if a licensed water supplier contravenes regulations or goes out of business, the logical approach is to give hack the right of supply to the water undertaker until a proper application can be dealt with from a new would-be licensed water supplier. That deals with Amendment No. 143.
Amendment No. 144 concerns the ministerial explanation that encapsulates all my doubts about the reasons for this Bill and the way those reasons are being translated into action. At col. GC 82 of Hansard of 10th April the noble Baroness, Lady Farrington, explained that the Bill extends the duty that water undertakers already have to supply water to domestic customers outside their area. It restricts them to competing only through their associated companies and not directly. We discussed that matter earlier today.
We now have a situation where water undertakers will lose their biggest customers to the licensed water suppliers to improve the competitiveness of the industry. Water undertakers will have an extended duty to supply on demand outside their area to non-domestic customers. However, water undertakers will compete outside their area only through their associated companies.
Am I the only person in this House who believes that some convoluted thinking is involved here? Why cannot undertakers compete as themselves? The amendment as tabled is totally inadequate for changing something as profound as this, but I hope that the Minister will address seriously the comments that I have made in proposing the amendment and that she will provide some answers.
I turn to Amendment No. 145. Our concern with this aspect of the Bill is that the water undertaker must pick up where the licensed supplier left off without necessarily being aware that it has left off. It may be possible to incorporate a legal duty on the supplier to inform the undertaker before abandoning the supply, but in some circumstances that one can think of, that would be the last thing that might happen.
There seems to be a presumption that in all cases the supplier will be drawing a continuous, probably steady, stream of water from the undertaker. Will the Minister confirm that in all cases that will be so? Further, will the total supply come from a single undertaker? What is the possible involvement of, for example, the British Waterways Board? What are the chances of pipe supply coming from the Continent? In such an event, who would pick up the duty of continuation after a supplier had pulled out, and how would that duty be notified? I beg to move.
9.15 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I appreciate the tabling of these amendments, which would clarify the situation. I hope that the Minister will give a good explanation because the system appears, as the noble Baroness said, to be very convoluted. It is one of the most impenetrable parts of the Bill.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I feel rather inclined to agree that it is one of the more complex parts of the Bill. Amendment No. 143 deals with strategic supply and special administration as they apply to licensees. Its effect is to leave customers without the protection offered by special administration. The special administration provisions will protect customers from the failure of a licensee where the licensee's introduction of water to the undertaker's network is too large for the undertaker to make up the shortfall. Such significant introductions of water into the network will be designated as strategic supplies. If a licensee were to fail financially or be at risk of losing its licence, Ofwat or the Secretary of State can apply to the High Court to put the licensee into special administration.
The special administrator would aim to continue the strategic input of water and to transfer it as a going concern to another supplier. The special administrator may either sell the contract for the provision of the supply to an undertaker or a licensed water supplier, depending upon who they decide is most suited immediately to take over the running of the strategic supply while providing a return to shareholders and creditors.
The special administrator is appointed by the court. It considers who should be sold the contract for the supply. It could be an undertaker or a licensee with the approval of the Secretary of State or Ofwat. Supplies will be considered strategic only where, without them, the undertaker could not fulfil its obligations to supply customers.

239
On Amendment No. 144, at present undertakers have a duty to supply customers outside their area for domestic purposes but not non-domestic purposes. We have sought to make the duty consistent for all supplies in that regard. The duty to supply will in the future also apply outside the undertaker's area only to customers who are not eligible for supply by a licensed water supplier. Undertakers will be allowed to compete outside their area only through their associated companies. That ensures that there is a clear boundary between the activities of the regulated undertaker and its associated company.
On the question about the boundary between England and France, I shall write to the noble Baroness. I shall return to the matter in a moment. The non-domestic duty is further qualified; it will not apply if in making that supply and supplying all other customers, the undertaker would incur unreasonable expenditure. I hope that that satisfies the noble Baroness in relation to that amendment.
I turn to Amendment No. 145, which would make the duty on the undertakers to provide an interim supply, under new Section 63AC, conditional on the relevant undertaker being aware that a supply from a licensed water supplier had ceased. The effect of that would be to stop the undertaker being able to charge for water that it had unknowingly supplied. We feel that that would not be equitable. We believe that the amendment was tabled in order to protect undertakers from being obliged to provide a supply, without notice, to customers whose licensed supplier failed them. In fact, the provisions are there for the protection of undertakers and customers as well.
If a licensee fails to supply its customer, water will still continue to flow out of the undertaker's pipes at the customer's premises. This provision ensures that whether or not the undertaker is aware that the licensee had stopped making a supply, it is able to recover charges from a customer for the water supplied; it does not depend on the customer informing him.
The customer is protected because, from the time of the licensee's failure, it has at least three months to make alternative arrangements for supply, either by another licensee or by the undertaker. After this period, the undertaker can choose to serve a disconnection notice if no other arrangements have been made. The undertaker is not required to maintain a standby water supply equivalent to the total supplied by the licensees in its area. It will be required to make an interim supply only for domestic needs, unless it has enough water to supply for other purposes.
I tried, with some difficulty, to bring together three amendments that I am delighted were grouped together. If I have failed to answer any of the questions that have been raised, because, as the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, recognised, the matter is extremely complex, I shall be delighted to write to all noble Lords who have taken part.
Baroness By-ford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. I apologise to the House that I linked the amendments. The House may be grateful that I did, but it was an error. Unfortunately I had not looked at my master list. At this stage of the proceedings I should like to read carefully the response given by the Minister. I am still unsure why associates have to be used, as opposed to their own companies. I would be glad of further clarification. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 144 and 145 not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 145A:
Page 196, line 45, at end insert—
"In section 72 (contamination of water sources), in subsection (5), after paragraph (b) there is inserted ";and
(c) any pipe or conduit of a licensed water supplier.""
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Geddes): My Lords, before calling Amendment No. 146, 1 must advise the House that there is a mistake on the Marshalled List. It should read:
"Page 198. line 14, leave out first "or" and insert "and"".
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 146:
Page 198, line 14, leave out first "or" and insert "and
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 147 to 152:
Page 198, line 25, leave out first "or" and insert "and"
Page 200, line 29, at end insert—
"( ) Section 162 (works in connection with metering) is amended as follows.
( ) In subsection (1A), in paragraph (a) at the end there is inserted "or".
( ) In that subsection, after paragraph (c) there is inserted "or
(d) a licensed water supplier supplies water to those premises using the undertaker's supply system."
( ) After that subsection there is inserted—
"(1B) In subsection (1A)(d) above, the reference to the supply system of a water undertaker shall be construed in accordance with section 17B(5) above.""
Page 200, line 31, at end insert—
" ( ) Section 174 (offences of interference with works) is amended as follows.
( ) After subsection (1) there is inserted—
"(1A) Subject to subsection (2) below, if any person without the consent of the licensed water supplier—

(a) intentionally or recklessly interferes with any pipe or any structure, installation or apparatus which—

(i) is vested in any licensed water supplier (in the case of a pipe) or belongs to any such supplier (in any other case); and

(ii) is used in connection with the carrying on by the supplier of the activities authorised by its licence; or

241

(b) by any act or omission negligently interferes with any such pipe or with any such structure, installation or apparatus so as to damage it or so as to have an effect on its use or operation,

that person shall be guilty of an offence and liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale."
In subsection (2)—

(a) after "subsection (1)" there is inserted "or (1A)"; and

(b) in paragraph (b)—

(i) after "water undertaker" there is inserted "or licensed water supplier"; and

(ii) in sub-paragraph (ii), for the words from "the stopcock was" to the end there is substituted "subsection (2A) below applies".

( ) After that subsection there is inserted—
"(2A) This subsection applies—

(a) in the case of a stopcock belonging to a water undertaker, if the stopcock was closed otherwise than by the undertaker;

(b) in the case of a stopcock belonging to a licensed water supplier—

(i) if the stopcock was closed otherwise than by the supplier; or

(ii) if the stopcock was closed by the supplier and the person in question for the purposes of subject: on (2) above is the water undertaker whose supply system is used for the purpose of the supply made by the supplier,

and in this subsection the reference to the supply system of a water undertaker shall be construed in accordance with section 17B(5) above."
( ) In subsection (3), in paragraph (c), for "section" there is substituted "subsection".
( ) After that subsection there is inserted—
"(3A) Any person who, without the consent of the licensed water supplier—

(a) attaches any pipe or apparatus to any pipe which is—

(i) vested in a licensed water supplier; and

(ii) used in connection with the carrying on by the supplier of the activities authorised by its licence;

(b) attaches any pipe or apparatus to any service pipe which does not belong to such a supplier or a water undertaker but which is a pipe by means of which water is supplied by such a supplier to any premises;

(c) makes any alteration in a service pipe by means of which water is so supplied, or in any apparatus attached to any such pipe; or

(d) subject to subsection (4) below, uses any pipe or apparatus which has been attached or altered in contravention of this subsection,

shall be guilty of an offence and liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale."
In subsection (4)—

(a) after "subsection (3) above" there is:inserted "or paragraph (d) of subsection (3A) above", and

(b) for "that subsection" there is substituted "subsection (3) or (3A) above (as the case may require)".

242
( ) After subsection (5) there is inserted—
"(5A) If any person wilfully or negligently injures or suffers to be injured any water fitting which—

(a) belongs to a licensed water supplier; and

(b) is used in connection with the carrying on by the supplier of the activities authorised by its licence,

he shall be guilty of an offence and liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding level I on the standard scale."
( ) After subsection (8) there is inserted—
"(8A) In this section "consumer"—

(a) in relation to a supply of water provided by a water undertaker to any premises, means a person who is for the time being the person on whom liability to pay charges to the undertaker in respect of that supply of water would fall;

(b) in relation to a supply of water provided by a licensed water supplier to any premises, means a person who is for the time being the person on whom liability to pay charges to the supplier in respect of that supply of water would fall."

( ) In subsection (9), for ""consumer" and "water fitting" have the same meanings" there is substituted ""water fitting" has the same meaning"."
Page 200, line 31, at end insert—
"( ) Section 175 (offence of tampering with meter) is amended as follows.
( ) In subsection (1)(a), after "undertaker" there is inserted "or licensed water supplier".
( ) In subsection (2), for the words from "consent" to the end there is substituted "appropriate consent".
( ) After that subsection there is inserted—
"(3) In subsection (2) above, the "appropriate consent" means—

(a) if the meter is used by one relevant undertaker, the consent of that undertaker;

(b) if the meter is used by one licensed water supplier, the consent of that supplier;

(c) if the meter is used by two or more of the following persons—

(i) a relevant undertaker;

(ii) a licensed water supplier,

the consent of each of those persons.
(4) In subsection (3) above, references to the consent of a relevant undertaker are references to consent under section 176 below.""
Page 203, line 11, at end insert—
"( ) In that subsection, in paragraph (c), for "203(1) or (2)" there is substituted "203(1), (1A), (2) or (2A)"."
Page 205, line 38, at end insert—
"( ) The WRA is amended as follows.
( ) In section 203 (exchange of information with respect to pollution incidents etc)—

(a) after subsection (1) there is inserted—

"(1A) It shall be the duty of the Agency to provide a licensed water supplier with all such information to which this section applies as is in the possession of the Agency and is reasonably requested by the supplier for purposes connected with the carrying on of activities under its licence.";

(b) after subsection (2) there is inserted—

243

"(2A) It shall be the duty of every licensed water supplier to provide the Agency with all such information to which this section applies as is in the possession of the supplier and is reasonably requested by the Agency for purposes connected with the carrying out of any of its functions.";

(c) for subsection (3) there is substituted—

"(3) Information provided to a water undertaker, to a licensed water supplier or to the Agency under subsection (1), ( 1 A), (2) or (2A) above shall be provided in such form and in such manner and at such times as the undertaker, the supplier or the Agency, as the case may be, may reasonably require.";

(d) in subsection (4)—

(i) for "subsection (1) or (2)" there is inserted "subsection (1), (1A), (2) or (2A)"; and

(ii) after "undertaker" there is inserted ", to a licensed water supplier";

(e) in subsection (5), for "a water undertaker under subsection (2) above shall" there is substituted—

"(a) a water undertaker under subsection (2) above; or

(b) a licensed water supplier under subsection (2A) above,

shall"; and.

(f) after subsection (7) there is inserted—

"(8) Any reference in this section to a licensed water supplier is a reference to a company holding a licence under Chapter 1A of Part 2 of the Water Industry Act 1991."

( ) In section 204 (restriction on disclosure of information)—

(a) in paragraph (b) of subsection (2), for "or sewerage undertaker" there is substituted ", sewerage undertaker or company holding a licence under Chapter 1A of Part 2 of the Water Industry Act 1991";

(b) in paragraph (c) of that subsection, for "203(1) or (2)" there is substituted "203(1), (1A), (2) or (2A)"; and

(c) in subsection (4)(a), after "sewerage undertaker" there is inserted ", or with the carrying on by a company holding a licence under Chapter 1A of Part 2 of the Water Industry Act 1991 of activities under its licence,"."

Page 206, leave out lines 14 and 15 and insert—
""(aa) a qualifying licensed water supplier within the meaning of subsection (6) of section 23 of the Water Industry Act 1991 (meaning and effect of special administration order),"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 59 [Water resources management plans]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 153:
Page 74, line 32, leave out "and"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 153, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 154, 161, 162, 164, 166, 173, 174, 177, 181, 182, 184 and 186. Amendments Nos. 153 and 154 respond to Amendment No. 171AA moved by the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, in Grand Committee, where he sought to ensure that water companies consult planning authorities for the purposes of preparing their water resources management plans.
The amendments give the Secretary of State the power to prescribe the parties to whom an undertaker must send a copy of its draft water resources management plan. We will ensure that these regulations specify the planning authorities appropriate to the undertaker's area of supply.
Amendment No. 161 is identical to Amendment No. 179A moved by the noble Earl, Lord Peel, in Grand Committee. It limits use of the direction-making power for the preparation of flood plans to those reservoirs subject to the 1975 Act's safety regime.
Amendment No. 162 in Clause 73 enables the Secretary of State to serve a notice on reservoir undertakers requiring them not to publish flood plans or to publish them only as specified. This power would be exercised only if the national security climate required it. The amendment makes clear that the provision applies to all reservoirs and not just the large raised reservoirs.
Amendment No. 164 provides the sanction for the requirement that relevant water mains and service pipes must be vested in a water undertaker if they are to be connected to the public water supply system. We consider that there needs to be a sanction to ensure undertakers comply with the requirement. The most appropriate way of doing this is to make the provision enforceable by the authority under Section 18 of the Water Industry Act 1991.
The remaining amendments are technical, tidy words, avoid ambiguity and deal with consequential issues. If the House wishes, I could go through them in detail. If not, I beg to move.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I have no wish to debate the amendments. I want merely to express my gratitude to the Government and to the Minister for her explanation, particularly with regard to consultation and planning. I also thank my noble friend Lord Peel for his suggestion as regards reservoirs. We are grateful that the Government have made these amendments.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 154:
Page 74, line 39, at end insert "; and

(c) send a copy of the published draft plan and accompanying statement to such persons (if any) as may be prescribed."

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 155:
After Clause 59, insert the following new
clause—
"Water conservation

WATER CONSERVATION DUTY FOR ALL PUBLIC BODIES
It is the duty of—

(a) any Minister of the Crown (within the meaning of the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975 (c. 26));

(b) any government department;

(c) the National Assembly for Wales;

245

d) a person holding office?—

(i) under the Crown;

(ii) created or continued in existence by a public general Act of Parliament; or

(iii) the remuneration in respect of which is paid out of money provided by Parliament;

(e) a statutory undertaker (meaning the persons referred to in section 262(1), (3) and (6) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (c. 8)); and

(f) any other public body of any description;

in carrying out his or its functions, to have regard, so far as is consistent with the proper exercise of those functions, to the purpose of furthering the conservation of water."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in the Bill, with agreement from all sides of the House, we have laid a duty on the Environment Agency to ensure that all water abstracters and users of water do so efficiently. However, we have not yet made an amendment to ensure that all government departments, Ministers, persons holding office under the Crown and any other public bodies do so. The amendment seeks to ensure that they have proper regard for the purposes of furthering water conservation. I do not believe it is reasonable that we should expect everyone else to be efficient in their use of water and not to expect that the Government will be at the heart of such conservation.
The amendment was tabled in Committee particularly with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the planning authorities in mind. I thought I had heard an encouraging response from the Government that they would consider bringing forward an amendment along these lines. I would have thought that such an amendment was in line with what Defra is supposed to do in promoting sustainability across all government departments. The inclusion of such an amendment would help it to do so.
I look forward to hearing whether the Government are regarding the amendment with favour. I beg to move.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, although our names are not added to the amendment, we have debated water conservation from the day we started debating the Bill at Second Reading. It gives me great pleasure to support it. If for any reason the Government find the amendment unacceptable because it is not technically correct, I hope that they will confirm that they will take the issue on board and return with their own amendment. I, too, had expected to see a government amendment. Perhaps it is taking a long time to find the right wording or perhaps the Government were close to accepting the noble Baroness's wording.
I support the thrust behind the amendment. Water conservation for individuals, public bodies and businesses is most important and I hope that the Government will look sympathetically on it.
9.30 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, in Committee I indicated that I would give further, positive consideration to the substance of this amendment. I regret that this has wide implications for the public sector as a whole and will involve some internal discussions. Those considerations are still under way, so I am not this evening in a position to bring forward an amendment. However, if I can, and if the noble Baroness can give me a little more time, I will do so at Third Reading. If not, I have no doubt that we will return to it if the noble Baroness should wish to pursue it. I cannot now agree the amendment.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, he did not answer my question. Is the wording unacceptable, or where do the wrinkles of the amendment lie? It would help us at Report stage—as there is only Third Reading to come—to be given some indication as to where the difficulties may lie.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am sorry to disappoint the noble Baroness. It is not an issue of precise wording, but of whether the Government as a whole can accept the wording. I cannot indicate the Government's position tonight.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I am disappointed not to have some more positive news from the Minister at this stage.
It would be absolutely appalling if, in a Bill in which we have laid duties on the private sector and on individuals, the Government were not able to accept a similar duty. I can imagine where the wrinkles lie and where the difficulties are, but some departments may not want to accept this. I accept that in planning terms, it will be difficult. However, given that the Government have admitted that the pressure on water is extreme—in fact, that is one of the reasons for the legislation—they should be most keen to consider it.
The Minister is right; I shall return to the point at Third Reading with all force if the Government do not bring something forward then. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness O'Cathain Baroness O'Cathain moved Amendment No. 156:
After Clause 59, insert the following new clause—
"RESTRICTION ON UNDERTAKERS' POWER TO REQUIRE FIXING OF CHARGES BY REFERENCE TO VOLUME
In section 144B of the WIA, in subsection ( 1)(c) after "prescribed" there shall be inserted "by the Secretary of State, on application by a water undertaker or the Environment Agency,".".
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment deals with metering. We have heard the same old song many times in the course of the Bill.
The amendment would enable the Environment Agency as well as the water companies to apply to the Secretary of State for an area to be designated as an area of water scarcity. The Environment Agency

247
accepts that real water savings from metering will come only when there is sufficient metering penetration to introduce innovative tariffs that dissuade high domestic use. The agency also recognises that large areas of the South East have unsustainable abstraction regimes. Therefore, we propose to give the agency a formal status in the process of making scarcity designations.
The Government have identified the,
"prudent use of water resources and keeping its use within the limits of its replenishment",
as a priority for water policy. They plan to achieve the sustainable management of water resources through a,
"twin track approach of demand management and development of resources".
These sentences are taken directly from Defra's Directing the Flow—Priorities for future water policy, which was published in November 2002.
However, the Government will permit the growth of metering only on a voluntary basis. Under current legislation—the Water Industry Act 1999—those occupying their homes on an unmetered basis may choose whether to be metered, and water companies may install meters in new buildings. The current situation in which free-meter options are offered is ineffective as a demand-management tool. Further, compulsory metering is more economical than optional or selective metering. Optional metering is more costly as meters may be situated in only every third or tenth house. In other words, compulsory metering is the only economic way of applying demand management in a scarce water area.
Water companies can carry out compulsory metering only when the area concerned is designated as an area of water scarcity under the Water Industry (Prescribed Conditions) Regulations 1999. Only the Government—namely, the Secretary of State—can designate an area as an area of water scarcity following an application from a water company. But the areas of the South East that have unsustainable abstraction regimes are not recognised as water scarce.
On 10th April in Grand Committee we tabled an amendment to empower the Environment Agency, instead of water companies, to make an application to the Secretary of State. In reply the Minister argued that water companies should be kept as the applicants as they have the detailed knowledge about water resources in their area, and, secondly, there is nothing at the moment to prevent the agency from proposing changes to the prescribed conditions; indeed, the Secretary of State must consult it on each application.
The Minister also said:
"Although the Environment Agency obviously has responsibilities for the totality of supply and can suggest to the Secretary of State that a scarcity designation be introduced, it is not sensible to limit the initiation of that to only the Environment Agency … If the amendment suggested that the Environment Agency should be put on the same footing as water companies, I would at least understand that".—[Official Report, 10/4/03; col. GC 112–113.]
248
The amendment seeks to address those points by giving the agency and the water companies equal status as applicants. I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I can see the sense in addressing the issue of metering, particularly in water-scarce areas. Perhaps in reply the Minister can address the fact that the water framework directive will encourage a change in water charging by moving from fixed charges to charges by volume. I believe that it points in that direction.
I believe that metering on a wider basis would be a more efficient way forward than just in water-scarce areas. However, those areas need to be addressed first, particularly in that regard. The noble Baroness referred to innovative powers. On moving from one system of charging to another, I regret that she did not support my amendment on water affordability because with such large shifts, which I believe will be necessary and which will come about, we need a safety net to protect the more vulnerable. That said, I see the need to consider this amendment.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, is right to draw attention to areas of water scarcity. A point I made in Committee is that in some parts of the country the infrastructure is very lengthy and difficult to maintain but there is plenty of water. In such areas it may not be appropriate to impose a metering regime. As I understand it, the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, is specifically addressing the problem of areas of water shortage.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I support the ideas behind this sensible amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Livsey, is right to say that there are areas in the country that have a water surplus. We have to ask whether metering is really necessary is such areas. But there are other parts of the country—East Anglia, Kent and the south—where there will also be increased building and increased demand. While the amendment does not require it all to be metered, it directs that metering should be considered seriously in those areas. I am sympathetic to that.
Whether we live in an area with plenty of water or an area that is short of water, it is still a precious commodity. We have talked about that throughout the Bill. While I accept that it is sensible to look in the first instance at areas where there are shortages of water, it may be that in the longer term we must think again.
In addition, we are going through some extraordinary cycles of climate change. We do not know where they will end. While it is suggested that new buildings should be metered, my noble friend will confirm that it is not compulsory. It is strongly

249
encouraged. As it is not compulsory, it seems sensible to highlight the difficulty in areas where there is a water shortage. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister says in response to the amendment.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I correct the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. The water framework directive does not require metering; it requires policies to have regard to recovering costs, which our system can do. Water framework or not, there are already powers relating to compulsory metering in areas of water scarcity. We do not need new, prescribed powers in those areas.
The present powers allow a water company to apply for water scarcity area status. The Secretary of State decides on the basis of that application, after consulting the Environment Agency, Ofwat, and so on, including the people who would be affected. We already have those powers. Despite the concerns about water scarcity, no water company has applied for those powers to be exerted.
The amendment adds the Environment Agency and the water companies together but then prescribes the Secretary of State to act only on their representations. Clearly, the Environment Agency can make representations to the Secretary of State and the water companies have a formal ability so to do. However, it is for the Secretary of State to judge whether the designation of an area of water scarcity—and therefore an area of compulsory metering—should be imposed. The amendment, while in a sense giving a stronger status to the Environment Agency, precludes the Secretary of State making the decision herself that there is an area of water scarcity.
I said earlier that no water company has yet applied for water scarcity area status, presumably on the basis that it might alienate its customers. One could conceive of a situation where it would be necessary for the Government to take the initiative, which the amendment would not allow the Secretary of State to do. While I understand some of the arguments behind the amendment—although I do not completely go along with the line that the noble Baroness takes on metering in general—I understand that in such situations we need to be able to act. In such situations the amendment constrains the ability to act in certain circumstances. It is not therefore appropriate.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, how does it constrain the ability of the Secretary of State to act? The Secretary of State currently has the power to act. The problem is that we are trying to get the Environment Agency on side. After all, the responsibility of the Environment Agency is to look after the environment and to ensure that the water resources situation is good for sustainability. One of the reasons for metering is to limit the consumption of water in areas of great water shortage.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Environment Agency is perfectly able to approach the Secretary of State to suggest that she uses her powers. She must react to an
250
approach from the water company, but she can make a judgment on it, and she would also be able to act independently of that.
The amendment would prescribe that the Secretary of State may designate those conditions only after an application from either a water company or the Environment Agency. A crisis situation could be identified which neither wished to suggest. Therefore, it is a constraining amendment, whether or not it was intended to be. I accept the importance of the Environment Agency being given the right. But the amendment as drafted is restrictive.
9.45 p.m.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister, as that is one aspect that I had not thought about. I shall go through the amendment with a fine-tooth comb to see whether we can improve the wording.
The Minister also made the point about customer reactions to compulsory metering, which I am sure is absolutely right. Nobody wants to be the first person to do the nasty thing; in other words, to make metering compulsory. However, if there is a serious shortage of water resources in an area, there is no alternative to longer-term metering; for example, in certain places in the South East the huge water resource problems will he compounded by an increase in house-building in the area. I shall take the matter away and return at a later stage. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness O'Cathain Baroness O'Cathain moved Amendment No. 157:
After Clause 61, insert the following new clause—
"WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLANS AND DROUGHT PLANS: IMPLEMENTATION
After section 39A of the WIA there is inserted—
"39D WATER RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLANS AND DROUGHT PLANS: IMPLEMENTATION
In carrying out their respective functions, the Environment Agency and the Authority shall—

(a) take into account the requirements of—

(i) all water resource management plans prepared in accordance with sections 37A and 37D above, and

(ii) all drought plans prepared in accordance with sections 39B and 39C above; and

(b) in that regard co-ordinate the exercise of their respective functions.""

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment would require the Environment Agency and the water regulator to take into account the requirements of all water resource management plans and all drought plans prepared pursuant to the Bill. That can be seen as advancing the cause of joined-up regulation, particularly in respect of water resources management.
The Government see water resource management plans and drought management plans as major elements of their strategy to manage water supplies and therefore ensure,
"the prudent management of water resources".
Again, I quote from Directing the Flow.
The plans fit into the regulatory regime in two important ways. First, water companies will prepare the plans. Ofwat expects them to take into account the long-running marginal costs. That information will be incorporated into the Environment Agency's updated water resource planning guidelines. Secondly, the Secretary of State will approve the plans.
The amendment ensures that the plans are carried forward into all aspects of the regulator's work. More generally, the Government are already working to achieve a closer integration between economic and environmental regulation; for example, they want the principles of sustainability to inform the work of the economic regulator. The Water Bill includes a specific duty on the regulator to take into account sustainable development. Also, the Government expect the regulators to work together on specific matters; for example, the implementation of the Water Framework Directive and tackling diffuse pollution.
The amendment is a practical step to ensure that environmental considerations, including the prudent management of water resources, inform the work of the new water services regulation authority and are of appropriate importance in that of the Environment Agency.
The amendment was not moved in Grand Committee. On 8th April, in reply to an amendment after Clause 39, the Minister said that he supported more co-ordination but would not favour doing it in such a way as to increase the Secretary of State's powers to override the regulator or undermine its independence.
This amendment enables more joined-up regulation without giving greater powers to the Secretary of State to intervene in the regulator's decisions. I beg to move.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I support my noble friend's amendment, which I hope the Government will be able to accept. Even if they cannot accept the current wording, I hope that they recognise the desire behind the amendment and what we hope to achieve. We all agree that we want prudent management. We have also talked about conservation and many other matters today. Joined-up government is essential.
If we are to have sustainable development in the future, we need to look at all aspects of water resource and water resource plans, particularly with regard to drought conditions that could occur. In the past, we have been quite lucky and there have been very few years when we have been so troubled. But that does not necessarily mean that in future years we will not be so troubled. I hope that the Minister will look at this
252
amendment sympathetically. My noble friend has brought an important amendment before us today. I have pleasure in supporting it.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, there are two issues with this amendment. Turning first to the issue of the drought and water resource management plans, it is important that water companies develop such plans but it is also important to recognise that those plans do not themselves have a statutory basis. As circumstances change, companies will undoubtedly adjust and modify their plans.
The problem with Amendment No. 157 is that it would have the effect of making Ofwat and the Environment Agency enforce plans which may be out of date and on which a company may have changed its mind. It is primarily for water companies to act on their plans and adjust them in the light of changing circumstances. The regulators must take a considered view based on the general management approach and the circumstances that prevail at the time of any change, taking into account their statutory duties.
The second effect of the amendment would be to ask Ofwat and the Environment Agency to co-ordinate their functions in respect of drought plans and water resource management plans. While joined-up government is highly desirable, the comments I made earlier on the rather blanket requirement on coordination also apply here. The two regulators have different functions and to co-ordinate every decision, particularly in this area, could lead to confusion as to their respective roles.
While the Government expect the regulators to work together, they have separate duties in this respect. Water regulators need to co-ordinate their activities, and in respect of the earlier more general amendment we said that we would look at ways of setting this out on a less issue-by-issue basis. But this is a matter where, because the respective roles can differ, prescribed co-ordination is difficult to write into this clause.
Clearly, there are other forms of co-ordination. The regulators are jointly committed to the code of practice, and so forth. As I indicated earlier, we recognise the need for greater co-operation between the various regulators, but I do not think that this form of words would be helpful in clarifying the legal duties of the regulators in this particular clause.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, he said that he wants to have joined-up government but on the other hand the regulators have different duties. But the Water Bill should bring all the regulators and all the agencies together. Is the Minister suggesting that there should be a water Bill for drinking water; a water Bill for sustainability of the environment; or a water Bill for anything else? It just does not make sense. I cannot understand the reaction to this amendment. The Minister could have said, "Look, it is flawed because it is written in the wrong way". Surely, the amendment makes plain common sense. I am very upset about it and I need to test the opinion of the House.
9.54 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 157) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 29; Not-Contents, 34.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Addinglon, L.

Mancroft, L.

Alderdice, L.

Masham of llton, B.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B

Astor of Hever, L.

Montrose, D.

Barker, B.

Northesk, E.

Blatch, B.

O'Cathain, B.[Teller]

Byford, B.

Palmer, L

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Razzall, L

Rennard, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Renton, L.

Geddes, L.

Rogan, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Linklater of Butterstone, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Livsey ofTalgarth, L.

Taylor ofWarwick, L.

Mackie ofBenshie, L.

Wade ofChorlton, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Andrews, B.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Blackstone, B.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Borrie, L.

Hardy of Wath, L

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Jones, L.

Crawley, B.[Teller]

Parekh, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Elder, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Thornton, B.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Warner, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Whitaker, B.

Gale, B.

Whitty, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
10.4 p.m.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting Lord Evans of Temple Guiting moved Amendment No. 157A:
After Clause 63, insert the following new clause—
"MEMBERSHIP OF REGIONAL FLOOD DEFENCE COMMITTEES IN WALES
After section 16 of the Environment Act 1995 (c. 25) there is inserted—
"16A POWER TO ALTER COMPOSITION OF REGIONAL FLOOD DEFENCE COMMITTEES IN WALES

(1) This section applies in relation to any regional flood defence committee which satisfies (or, upon the coming into force of an order made under Schedule 4 to this Act, will satisfy) both of the conditions in subsection (2) below (a "Welsh committee").

(2) The conditions are—

(a) the whole or the greater part of the committee's area is in Wales; and

(b) no local flood defence scheme is in force in relation to the area of the committee.

254

(3) The National Assembly for Wales may by order made by statutory instrument make provision determining—

(a) the total number of members of a Welsh committee; and

(b) the method of selection and appointment of the chairman and other members of the committee (including who is to appoint them).

(4) An order under subsection (3) may—

(a) apply either to Welsh committees generally or to a particular Welsh committee;

(b) include such supplemental, consequential and transitional provision as the National Assembly for Wales considers appropriate.

(5) In relation to a Welsh committee whose area is not wholly in Wales—

(a) the power to make an order under subsection (3) above may be exercised only with the agreement of the Secretary of State; and

(b) a statutory instrument containing an order under that subsection shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

(6) An order under subsection (3) above shall not be considered local in nature for the purposes of section 58(6) of the Government of Wales Act 1998 (definition of "Assembly general subordinate legislation").

(7) Section 15 above (or, where the order is being made in conjunction with an order under Schedule 4 to this Act, that Schedule) shall not apply for the purposes of making an order under subsection (3) above.

16B Effect of order under section 16A

(1) Sections 15 and 16 above and section 18A(3) below shall not apply to a regional flood defence committee in respect of which an order under section 16A above is in force.

(2) In relation to any such committee, section 18 below shall have effect as if—

(a) paragraph (b) of subsection (4) read "other members appointed in accordance with and subject to the terms of the local flood defence scheme"; and

(b) paragraph (c) of subsection (4), and subsection (5), were omitted.

(3) In relation to any such committee whose membership does not include any member appointed by or on behalf of a constituent council, Schedule 5 to this Act shall have effect as if—

(a) in paragraph 1(1), the words "other than those appointed by or on behalf of one or more constituent councils" were omitted;

(b) sub-paragraphs (2), (3) and (4) of paragraph 1 were omitted; and

(c) paragraphs 2 and 9 were omitted.""

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendments will provide the National Assembly for Wales with the power by order to reform the composition of regional flood defence committees in Wales. The present composition is established by primary legislation. In Wales committees comprise local authority, Environment Agency and Assembly appointees with the local authorities providing the majority.
Flood defence functions in Wales are devolved to the National Assembly, which is the democratically accountable body for Wales. The Bill separately provides powers which will enhance the Assembly's ability to make changes to the structure of flood defence committees and their funding arrangements. It is logical that in considering this the Assembly should be able to determine the membership of its committee(s) which have a key role in delivering flood defence for the people of Wales.
Making the power available to the Assembly does not prejudge how that power will be exercised. If, however, the Assembly decided to exercise this power, any proposed change would be subject to the Assembly's scrutiny and approval procedures.
As current committee boundaries follow river catchment rather than political boundaries, there are parts of England which are served by Welsh committees and vice versa. To safeguard the interests of those living in England and being served by Welsh committees the amendment includes the requirement for the Secretary of State's agreement to changes proposed by the Assembly which impact on England.
Clause 92 is consequential on the introduction of Sections 16A and 16B. I beg to move.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, I am happy to make a short input into the amendment as a Welsh Member of this House. It is very welcome indeed to see that the Assembly will be able to exercise these powers. I wish to put one or two points on the record regarding membership of regional flood defence committees in Wales. I am pleased that the amendment refers to committees to be specified by the Assembly, and that the Assembly will have the power to alter the composition of the regional flood defence committees in Wales. That is a satisfactory state of affairs.
The method of selection of the committees is the purview of the National Assembly. I wish to make two points which are encapsulated in the present system. Obviously, there is the question of technical expertise and local input. At the present time some of the technical expertise is supplied by the Environment Agency and the local input by local authorities. I am sure that the Assembly will take note of what I have just said and will undoubtedly also take note of what the Minister said about cross-border influences and the solutions to that. I merely point out that we have in Wales at least two river systems, the Wye and the Severn, which cross the England/Wales border. It is obviously important that that aspect is addressed by the Assembly.
Should the Government accept what is contained in the next amendment—I do not want to pre-empt it in any way—that might have an impact on what the Assembly might wish to do on the question of river basin management. I hope that the Assembly will take note of this debate and the points made in it and in particular the merits of some of the aspects of the Bill to help it come to decisions on how to manage the system. I realise that I am on delicate ground as this is the purview of the Assembly and not of this House. Nevertheless I make these points as a Welsh Member of this House.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I am very pleased to follow the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, in responding to the amendment. In doing so, I hope that he will forgive a gentle reminder, prompted by his opening remarks, that he is a Member of this House. He may come from
256
a part of the country that is rather special, but we all come from parts of the country that are rather special, and we none of us represent them.
I am very grateful to the Minister for his letter of explanation, if only because it gave me the opportunity to consult colleagues who knew rather more about the special area that the amendment affects than I do. We have members there, and the Minister will be glad to know that he is acting in complete compliance with their wishes. I am sure that that will give him great reassurance.
The amendments are easy to support, because they are directed at giving control of the local situation with regard to rivers and so on to those who know most about them—the people immediately affected. I have only one comment: what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. The amendment applies to Wales, but others might apply to England. If we are to apply a consistent principle throughout the Bill, proposing something for one area makes it entirely relevant for consideration elsewhere. I am happy to support the amendment.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: My Lords, I want to tell the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, that I know exactly where I come from. I do not come from Wales; I come from Cambridge in England. However, I am here as spokesman in the House of Lords for matters relating to Wales. I am extraordinarily sensitive, as we all have to be, to the fact that we are talking about a devolved matter. It is absolutely appropriate for noble Lords to comment on matters, but we must remind ourselves that those matters have to be considered by the Welsh Assembly. For that reason, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, for putting on record for consideration by Members of the Welsh Assembly a number of matters in which he was interested and wished to draw to their attention.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 64 [Regional flood defence committees]:
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer moved Amendment No. 158:
Page 81, line 25, at end insert—
"(5) Subsections (1) to (4) above shall have effect until December 2007.
(6) On 1st December 2007 section 14 (regional flood defence committees) of the Environment Act 1995 shall be repealed.
(7) From 1st December 2007 the Secretary of State shall, by order, establish a river basin management committee in place of each regional flood defence committee which will cease to exist under subsection (5).
(8) The timescale for the establishment of river basin management committees under subsection (7) shall be in accordance with Article 14 of the Water Framework Directive.
(9) Each river basin management committee shall include

(a) elected local authority members from the local authorities which are located in part or entirely within the river basin covered by the committee; and

(b) other members whom the Secretary of State considers to offer substantial local knowledge on issues within the competence of the committee.

257
(10) Each river basin management committee shall inherit all of the powers and duties of the regional flood defence committee it shall replace.
(11) Each river basin management committee shall develop policies and a river basin management plan in consultation with the Environment Agency.
(12) Each river basin management committee may, where the size of the river basin so necessitates, and after consulting the Secretary of State, establish such sub-basin management committees as it considers appropriate.
(13) From 1st December 2007 the amendments made in subsections (2) to (4) to Schedule 4 to the Environment Act 1995 shall have effect as if references to "regional flood defence committee" or any variant thereof were to "river basin management committee" or the appropriate variant."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the clause aims to rearrange the flood defence committees. Before I go any further I had better declare an interest, in that my husband chairs one such committee. The rearrangement of the committees may well be an improvement, hut it ignores completely a whole range of issues that the Water Framework Directive—we have been reminded that it will move into national implementation at the end of the year—will require. It is a great loss that Clause 64, instead of grasping that opportunity and creating river basin management committees, simply rearranges flood defence committees.
My amendment does not propose adding another layer of committee. It proposes that we abolish flood defence committees, not immediately but in 2007; I recognise that it may well take that long for the Government to come up with the geographical areas, composition of the committees and exactly how they will operate. By 2007, we need committees that are able to take on the requirements of the Water Framework Directive.
I am aware that there is government resistance to this proposal. The Government, having appointed the Environment Agency as the competent agency to oversee all of the river basin management issues, believe that the agency should be in charge of its own plans with its own discretion as to how and when to involve the public.
The directive makes it clear that public participation must happen. But I do not believe that it is adequate to leave the agency in charge of such an important area and then to say that the flood control element alone can be subject to some kind of democratic accountability.
I anticipate that the Minister may well say that local plans or regional spatial plans are the place for involvement. But at present those bodies have much else to deal with—housing, waste and transport—and they will never devote sufficient time to water and water issues, particularly at the point when the Water Framework Directive is new and needs an enormous amount of energy in terms of its successful implementation. Perhaps after 15 or 20 years the regional spatial plans might be considered the place to deal with water issues. But I do not believe that any of our democratic structures these days are likely to last for 20 years unchanged.
The Environment Agency's role as the competent authority is crucial in terms of giving technical advice and producing the plan. But it is primarily an organisation that is geared to regulating. Its primary function is not as a facilitator of public debate and involvement—indeed, that is not where its expertise lies.
We need a statutory group of people, drawn from the communities of the river basin, to oversee a process which, if successfully implemented, as we have said time and again in this House, will bring great benefits. But if it is unsuccessfully implemented, with inadequate public participation, it could well be disastrous and expensive. To date, the Government's record is not terrific in this area. They have one pilot in the Ribble Valley which was implemented a year or so later than all the rest of the European pilots and after a great deal of debate over whether England would bother with a pilot at all. By contrast, the Scottish Executive already has a national stakeholder forum of representatives of industry, landowners, environmental organisations and the public.
My amendment allows in subsection (9) for a mix of people, but, crucially, it specifies that there must be representatives of the public, elected by the public themselves, as councillors. The Secretary of State can then supplement those from a range of people with the necessary skills and local knowledge.
As to timing, I have specified December 2007. I suggest that that would be enough time for the Government to organise this process. It is also driven by the fact that that is the latest date when the river basin management plans can be produced on time yet enable adequate public input. The preparation of the plans must happen at least three years before they are due to be implemented.
Anyone in this Chamber—I know that there are several—who has been involved in the preparation of a local plan will know that it takes several years to allow for enough public consultation. Given that the Water Framework Directive introduces a new process, I believe that that time-scale is probably just sufficient.
It has been said that the Water Framework Directive will have as big an impact on the management of water in Europe as Roman aqueducts did at the time. I remind the Government that in Roman times the introduction of aqueducts decided whether new towns could develop. They removed water from some and gave it to others. Perhaps the Labour Government should not be compared to a Roman emperor, but I hope that they will have learnt some lessons from that and will encourage genuine public participation, where the agency is not in charge of the process. I beg to move.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, my name is attached to this amendment. I wish also to mention Amendment No. 159, which is linked to Amendment No. 158. First, I fully support my noble friend Lady Miller in her amendment and wish to be

259
recorded as doing so, particularly with regard to the aspects of the amendment relating to local input, which is absolutely vital in river basin management.
However, my concern is with Amendment No. 159, which relates to non-main rivers. The amendment states:
"River basin management committees shall have the power to direct … the Environment Agency to carry out non-main river management schemes".
That is not all. Paragraph (b) states,
"that adequate funds be provided to the Environment Agency to carry out non-main river management schemes to agreed standards".
I am happy to say that I received letters from the Minister and the Environment Agency which are extremely helpful in that regard.
As Members of this House will know, in Committee I pressed particularly hard for non-main rivers to be taken within the purview of the Environment Agency so far as concerns management, flooding and matters of that kind. The Environment Agency responded, saying that the Government are already proposing to transfer responsibility for critical ordinary water courses by reclassifying them as main rivers. I welcome that very much. My only problem is that that apparently does not include all non-main rivers but those classified as critical ordinary water courses.
To inject a lighter note into this matter, the letter from the Environment Agency says that this subject has the unfortunate acronym of "COWS". I suppose that that is the first instance of cows grazing water! Indeed, main rivers are already designated, and ordinary water courses and all other water courses are the responsibility of local authorities or, where they exist, internal drainage boards. I believe that the Government have gone a long way to ensuring that non-main rivers which cause considerable flooding and problems and which at present are not maintained or managed by the Environment Agency will be so maintained and managed in future.
I am a little concerned about what will happen to ordinary water courses which are not critical. As I understand it, this matter will still come within the control of local authorities. Global warming is important these days and is becoming increasingly so. Sometimes communities receive a surprise when smaller rivers which they have not seen flood for a long time suddenly do so because of incidents which are not, and in the past have not been, typical but, sadly, sometimes now are, and they cause much damage to property and to land. Therefore, in proposing this amendment, I am taking note of correspondence that I have received from the Minister.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I believe that two issues relating to these amendments are worth mentioning. Having dealt with the previous amendment, which sets out particular conditions for Wales, it seems to me that, in a sense, the Government are conceding the principle behind the amendments so far as concerns England. The Minister may choose to deny that in due course, but that remains to be seen.
260
However, I believe it has been a consistent argument from our side that those who know most about the local conditions on local rivers and most about where the problems lie are those who have to deal with them. In the past, those organisations have always been the local river board or the local land drainage committee or whatever. In principle at any rate, we would be bound to support the sentiments behind the amendments even if we did not agree with every word in them.
A slightly different issue arose in correspondence that I saw a while ago from our local environment agency. It appeared to fall back on what I believe is still the technical English common law position; that is, ultimately, the responsibility for any particular water course lies with the riparian owner. A local authority may act—it has the power to act if it feels that that is necessary—but it does not have to. I believe that I am right in saying that the same legal position applies to the Environment Agency: it may act—it has powers to act—but the legal responsibility if things go wrong still lies with the riparian owner. I should be pleased to be reassured that the responsibility of local authorities, local drainage boards or the Environment Agency was more clearly drafted than was implied by that correspondence. Whatever answer I receive, I may have to have more interesting correspondence with my local environment agency.
I return to the amendment. In principle we believe that it is correct and I am pleased to support it and those grouped with it.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, Amendment No. 158 would abolish regional flood defence committees and replace them with "river basin management committees". The intention appears to be that these new committees would deal not only with flood defence but also the river basin management plans under the water framework directive. It is not mandatory under that directive to create river basin management plans and it does not touch other responsibilities of the flood defence committees.
The Government yield to no one in this regard; certainly not with regard to the expressions, with which I totally agree, about the importance of local engagements and local representation on the management boards. We have a query with the structure and timescale proposed in the amendment. The Government have recently announced their own conclusions on the review of flood and coastal defence funding and administrative arrangements. That followed pretty widespread consultation. One of the key conclusions is that a single tier of flood defence committees should be established to improve accountability and reduce administration. At present, some parts of the country have two tiers and others have one tier; it is a total hotchpotch. Clause 64 as currently drafted would allow us to create the new structure and I hope that it would do so within a timescale that allowed us to put the new structure in

261
place by 2005. The noble Baroness's amendment puts that back by two years and would require a further round of changes to the structure and loss of the benefits in the intervening years. More importantly, it leaves us with a structure that relates to river basin catchment areas, several of which are larger than the areas that are currently covered by some of the flood defence committees and might prove difficult to operate effectively.
Respondents to the review emphasised the need for flood defence provisions to be determined by dedicated bodies covering areas that were significantly smaller than the larger river basins.
Flood defence committees would have a very distinct role to play in delivering the flood defence service. The Environment Agency is required to carry out nearly all of its flood defence responsibilities through those committees. They are, in that sense, executive committees. That is most effectively served by the discharge of their powers and functions through regional flood defence committees that are specifically designed for that purpose and not the wider purposes envisaged by the amendment. If we submerged them in a new committee with a much broader remit we could lose the focus on flood defence issues, which is vital to our flood defences.
The role of the Environment Agency was also raised. We have already consulted on the proposition that the Environment Agency will be the "competent authority" for the directive rather than local authorities, and that the agency's functions will include co-ordinating the production of river basin management plans. The agency is developing a strategy for ensuring effective engagement with stakeholders, including local authorities and others, but it will be for the agency to decide whether this might include more formal committee-style arrangements to carry forward the development of river basin plans. That is a separate issue from how we structure our flood defences.
The whole point of any rationalisation of the current flood defence committee structure is to make it more effective, more focused, and less of a hotchpotch across the country. The effect of this amendment would be to broaden the scope and create some large structures that would be incapable of carrying out that focused activity.
Regarding Amendment No. 159, to which the noble Lord, Lord Livsey spoke, it is true that some classification issues arise, but the distinction between "main rivers" and "non main rivers" needs to be maintained. The main rivers are those on which the Environment Agency's activity is focused, and which provide the highest risk from flood damage. The amendment would suggest that non-main rivers would come under the Environment Agency. I was not sure whether the noble Baroness was referring to the Secretary of State or to my noble friend Lady Young of Old Scone as a Roman emperor—she is not in her
262
place. The idea that all local authorities' functions in relation to non-main rivers should come under the Environment Agency would be met with resistance by the local authorities. In any case, it is not appropriate if the focus of the Environment Agency is on the areas of highest risk.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving way. Neither the funding nor the equipment is available to local authorities to manage the non-main rivers adequately. As I understand from correspondence, critical waters are now going to be managed by the Environment Agency. Am I correct?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the Environment Agency allocates its priorities according to the highest risks, and those are on the main rivers. Therefore the funding priorities reflect that. I cannot comment on the exact funding situation of any group of local authorities that have been in correspondence with the noble Lord. But priority for flood defence relates to the main rivers—including one or two that may need to be reclassified.
The two amendments go against the outcome of the consultation, and the intention to set up flood defence committees that are capable of delivering the job of flood defence and relate to areas that can be truly reflective, both of local representation and of the flood defence threats presented. I therefore hope that the amendments are not pursued.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I am almost speechless. Out of politeness, I thank the Minister for his reply, but I am deeply disappointed by it. He continues to miss the point. I agree that the Government did consult on flood defence committees' restructuring, when they should have been consulting on how to involve the public in the Water Framework Directive. When the Minister said that the committees need simply to be flood defence committees, so that they can focus on floodwater issues, that entirely misses where the Water Framework Directive takes us. It takes us away from dealing with floodwater as simply that, and it encourages us to deal with water as a whole, as a cycle—so that while it could be floodwater, it could also be water helping wetlands to be successful or it could be irrigation water. That will involve the public in all sorts of ways, planning authorities and so on.
I am deeply disappointed that the Government still refuse to see that simply rearranging the flood defence committees will not change fundamentally the attitude to water of the public and public bodies as required for the measure to be successful.
I can see that I shall get no further in obtaining the Government's consent to the amendment. In order to make the point, I shall test the opinion of the House.
10.35 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 158) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 17; Not-Contents, 30.

Division No. 4

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Astor of Hever, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L. [Teller]

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B

Barker, B.

Montrose, D

Blatch B

Northesk, E.

Byford, B.

O'Cathain, B.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Razzall, L.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L. [Teller]

Geddes, L.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Andrews, B.

Gale, B.

Blackstone, B.

Goldsmith, L.

Borrie, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Campbell-Savours, L.

Hardy of Wath,.L.

Clark of Windermere, L.

Jones, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Crawley, B. [Teller]

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Davies of Coity, L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Elder, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Thornton, B.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Warner, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Whitaker, B.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Whitty,.L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
10.46 p.m.
[Amendment No. 159 not moved.]
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 160:
After Clause 67, insert the following new clause—

EFFICIENT USE OF WATER RESOURCES
In section 6 of the Environment Act 1995 (c. 25) (general provisions with respect to water), in subsection (2)(b), after "Wales" there is inserted "(including the efficient use of those resources)"."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 160A not moved.]
Clause 69 [Environment Agency to be enforcement authority under the Reservoirs Act 1975]:
[Amendment No. 160B not moved.]
Clause 72 [Flood plans]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 161:
Page 85, line 17, after first "a" insert "large raised"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 73 [National security]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 162:
Page 86, line 34, after "reservoir" insert "(whether a large raised reservoir or not, as the case may be)"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Livsey Lord Livsey of Talgarth moved Amendment No. 163:
After Clause 76, insert the following new clause—
"SUSTAINABLE CONSERVATION OF WATER RESOURCES
The Environment Agency shall continuously monitor water resources in England and Wales to ensure—

(a) that all water resources are ecologically sustainable;

(b) high levels of water quality;

(c) that water quality consistently improves over time;

(d) that compensatory river flows can sustain a river system:

(e) that volumes of water in lakes and reservoirs comply with agreed pre-determined levels;

(f) that oxygen and acidity levels meet agreed parameters;

(g) that fresh water fisheries can sustain the renewal of fish populations;

(h) that actions and targets are laid down as a result of river basin management plans agreed with river basin management committees."

The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 163 is the braces for the belt which is the EU Water Framework Directive. If that does not come through in the Bill, this is a longstop to try to ensure that we have proper environmental sustainability. The amendment deals with the sustainable conservation of water courses. We ask for the Environment Agency to monitor continuously water resources in England and Wales to ensure that all water courses are ecologically sustainable; that there are high levels of water quality; that water quality consistently improves over time: that compensatory river flows can sustain a river system; that volumes of water in lakes and reservoirs comply with agreed pre-determined levels; that oxygen and acidity levels meet agreed parameters; that fresh water fisheries can sustain the renewal of fish populations; and that actions and targets are laid down as a result of river basin management plans agreed with river basin management committees.
That is a longstop if we do not have adequate protection in the Bill. We would like to ensure that the principles of environmental sustainability are contained in this legislation. We believe that the main points are made in the amendment. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the noble Lord links this amendment to the Water Framework Directive and in some sense it would appear to be another attempt to put chunks of the directive or what one needs to do under the directive on to the face of the Bill. I know that is what the noble Lord thinks and that is what the Liberal Democrat Benches have been urging on us, but the logic of decisions taken during the passage of the Bill is that, for the implementation of the directive, we are resting on the normal transposition process. Therefore, the Bill does not cover the range of areas covered by the Water Framework Directive. While many of the objectives are desirable and reflect other parts of the Bill, it seems superfluous to have in the Bill a clause that will be dealt with by another piece of

265
legislation, albeit secondary legislation, under the European Communities Act. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord does not pursue the amendment.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, I note what the Minister said, and I also note the late hour. This amendment is essential to ensuring the environmental and sustainable conservation of water resources. However, I do not wish to press this amendment at present. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 85 [Self-lay and adoption of water mains and service pipes]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 164:
Page 101. line 6, at end insert—
"( ) The prohibition imposed on a water undertaker by subsection (11) above shall be enforceable under section 18 above by the Authority."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 86 [Requisition and adoption of sewers]:
Lord Livsey of Talgarth Lord Livsey of Talgarth moved Amendment No. 165:
Page 105, line 31, at end insert—
"(5) After consultation with any such bodies a s appropriate the Secretary of State shall publish a protocol for unadopted sewers."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I ant sure that the Minister will note that I have considerably modified this amendment, which refers to unadopted sewers. The Minister was helpful in Committee. In the report of the Committee proceedings of 29th April 2003, one can read that the Minister assured the Committee that as far as the new build was concerned, any new sewers would be the subject of a protocol that was established as a result of a consultation in 2000,
"which sets out the key elements of design and construction of sewers for all new developments".—[Official Report, 29/4/03; col. GC 161.]
That is what the Minister said when we discussed another, similar amendment. He stated then that,
"the situation is far more complicated with regard to existing private sewers".—[Official Report, 29/4/03; col. GC 161.]
At that time, the Minister said that he would shortly issue a consultation paper seeking views on possible solutions to deal with the problems.
In this amendment, I am not asking for precise commitments from the Minister in the Bill, but I am asking for parity with new developments as far as unadopted sewers are concerned. We arc asking for a protocol for unadopted sewers, in the same way as the Minister outlined that there is a protocol for new sewers. This would be a commitment from the Government to ensure that these unadopted sewers would be the subject of a protocol and would be brought up to scratch over time. It gives the Minister more leeway than I gave him in previous amendments in Committee.
I doubt whether there is any Member in the other place who is not afflicted with the problem of unadopted sewers in his constituency. They are a blight on housing, and a huge problem. If the Minister
266
will accept this and produce a protocol that lays down the conditions for unadopted sewers to be brought into the system in a way of the Government's choosing, many residents throughout the country would be eternally grateful. This is important, and I beg to move the amendment.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, it is a regrettable fact that unadopted sewers have an awkward parallel with unadopted roads. Sometimes, trying to put the situation right is a moot point. If people have lived with unadopted sewers and unadopted roads, often the problem of getting them into a state in which they can be adopted—which means lifting them to a standard where they are of comparable quality and comparable stamina to existing public roads or sewers—places the householders with considerable financial liabilities.
It may be a regrettable reality, but if the Secretary of State produces a protocol on the matter—it would not cost the Exchequer exorbitant sums of money—there will be great difficulty and disappointment. The Secretary of State can, and probably should, come up with a protocol. But none of us should begin to assume that the protocol will necessarily provide relief or an immediate solution to those who must live with such problems, if there is a problem.
The situation will be rectified only when property owners who are affected eventually dip into their pockets and lay out the necessary capital, as has been the case with unadopted roads. If they do so, and must subsequently put their property on the market, they will normally get their money back in enhanced value. But that does not alter the fact that many of them will not want to sell their property; nor will they want to put their hands in their pockets. This is a quite fruitful way of causing divisions in what are often tight-knit communities.
That said, I agree entirely that, where such problems exist, they should be tackled if possible. However, they can be tackled only with the voluntary agreement and co-operation of those who have enjoyed the benefit of living for so long with an unadopted sewer.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I recognise some of the points and problems referred to. However, the amendment is slightly misconstrued. The protocol to which the noble Lord, Lord Livsey, and I referred deals with the design, construction and adoption of new sewers and the process of development. In this amendment, for the most part, we are talking about what should be done about existing unadopted sewers. It is doubtful that a protocol for unadopted sewers would be parallel to that which has been produced for new development.
The next stage of the work is to look at existing private sewers. We will shortly produce a consultation paper engaging with everyone concerned about solutions for dealing with existing private sewers in England and Wales. I am not sure of the outcome of the consultation. However, it will not be the same sort of protocol to which I referred in Committee. Therefore, it is premature, and

267
probably inappropriate, to stipulate a protocol in this part of the Bill. I must therefore resist the noble Lord's amendment.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, for his support of the amendment. I note what the Minister says; however, as he said previously, there will be a consultation paper on unadopted private sewers. I am sure that we will all be anxious to know the outcome of that consultation. It is not asking much of the Minister in these circumstances to produce a protocol and to give a commitment that it will incorporate the findings of the consultation paper. The amendment was deliberately loosely framed, but we seek a commitment.
In the circumstances, it may be necessary to return to the matter on Third Reading. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 88 [Requisition of lateral drains]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 166:
Page 108, line 43, leave out subsection (8) and insert—
"(8) The substitution by subsection (7) of section 101 of the WIA does not apply in respect of requirements notified under section 98 of the WIA before subsection (7) comes into force."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
11 p.m.
Clause 91 [Communication with public sewers]:
Baroness O'Cathain Baroness O'Cathain moved Amendment No. 167:
Page 113, line 42, at end insert—
"(2A) For paragraph (b) of subsection (2) there is substituted—
"(b) to discharge directly or indirectly—

(i) foul water into a sewer provided for surface water; or

(ii) except with the approval of the undertaker, surface water into a sewer provided for foul water; or"."

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 167, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 168, 169 and 170. The background to these amendments is that sewerage and drainage systems are designed to cope with existing and planned development. Systems have to be managed to cope with excessive rainfall or demand. However, water companies have no discretion as to where a developer or householder connects to the drainage and sewerage systems. Some developments are designed with sustainable drainage systems such as soakaways. That may mean that there is no surface water sewer. Currently, there is nothing to prevent a householder from connecting his surface water run-off to the public foul sewer. Such overloading of systems can lead to flooding.
There is a case for allowing water companies to reject or amend developers' plans or householders' requests for connection in cases where it may lead to problems for existing infrastructure and to suggest
268
alternative connection solutions. The amendments will allow sewerage undertakers some discretion as to whether to allow connection of private surface water sewers and drains to public sewers in circumstances where less costly provision for surface water disposal could be made. It will enable sewerage undertakers to develop a sewerage system planned and managed in a sustainable manner, to reduce the risk of flooding from sewers and to ensure consideration of sewerage and ancillary works at an early stage of the development and construction process.
In Grand Committee, the Minister acknowledged the importance of sewerage and the necessity for developers to take account of the problems that can arise if the developer does not recognise what has happened there already and what will be needed in terms of increased pressure on the system. He said that the Government were in discussion with water companies and the ODPM about sewerage development. He continued, recognising the problems. He responded that sustainable surface water drainage systems are being considered by a working group under the chairmanship of the agency. He suggested:
"If we can develop such systems, they can significantly reduce pressure on the sewerage system by collecting, treating and disposing of surface water locally into the ground. … We also need to establish the responsibilities and the costs of building and maintaining such systems".
The Minister referred to the consultation paper launched on 22nd May.
He added:
"Until that work is completed and decisions have been taken on it later in the year, I believe that it would be premature to accept the amendment as it stands and to see whether … we should amend Section 106 of the 1991 Act".—[Official Report, 29/4/03; col. GC 163.]
There is a lot of good reasoning in the Minister's arguments. We understand that the Government will publish its own consultation on SUDs in the autumn, along with a consultation on private sewers—should these be adopted by the industry. We are concerned that there is no guarantee that these amendments, if withdrawn, would feature in a subsequent Bill, which we assume would be the environment Bill.
Supporting the case against the Minister's arguments, subsection (4A)(a) in Amendment No. 168 states that where,
"it is feasible for an alternative method of drainage to be provided. utilised, maintained and kept in repair",
and in (b) that it is,
"justifiable taking into account the relative cost to the applicant".
The fallback position for the industry would be to seek assurances that provisions covering the amendments would be incorporated within a subsequent environment Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, we support the amendments, particularly those which relate to foul water. It is a huge problem in some areas and a very serious degradation of the water environment.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I recognise that and the problems which this group of amendments seek to

269
address. But I repeat what I said in Committee. We have issued the Framework for Sustainable Drainage Systems in England and Wales as a consultation paper which, among other things, focuses on the issues of sewerage, including the problem where foul sewers also carry surface water and the surcharge and discharge that results from that.
That consultation is quite complex. I am still of the view that we should await that consultation before proposing amendments to the 1991 Act, to which these amendments are directed.
A further consultation stage may be necessary later this year so that we can consider further all the specific disposal arrangements, including the issue of enforceable ownership and arrangements relating to the connection and maintenance of private sewers. Until we have gone through that process, it is premature to amend Section 106 of the 1991 Act.
Therefore, while registering similar concerns to the noble Baroness, I would not wish to see the amendment in the Bill. However, as a result of the consultation, it may be that some other piece of legislation may be appropriate to carry forward similar amendments.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, it could also be that after the process of consultation nothing would be done; then what do we do? If this is such a serious matter, we want to ensure that it is somewhere in the Bill.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, at the end of the consultation period we will take decisions in the light of the consultation. It is conceivable that one of the options would be to do nothing. I very much doubt it however; this is too serious a problem for no action to be taken.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, listening to the last sentence or so I feel happier. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 168 to 170 not moved.]
Baroness O'Cathain Baroness O'Cathain moved Amendment No. 171:
After Clause 91, insert the following new clause—
"DISPUTES OVER DUTY TO PROVIDE SEWERS
(1) Section 101A of the WIA (further duty to provide sewers) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsections (7) to (10), wherever the words "Environment Agency" appear, there is substituted "Secretary of State"."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment changes the appellant body from the Environment Agency to the Secretary of State. That will remove the inequality of sewerage undertakers having to appeal to the body they were in dispute with. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, when the Environment Act was drafted in 1995 it was considered that the Environment Agency was the appropriate body to consider disputes arising from a sewerage undertaker's
270
decision. It had, and still has, the expertise for dealing with such matters. I know that there are concerns about the pressure on the Environment Agency with the time taken to deal with such disputes; particularly those challenged by undertakers through a judicial review. But were they to revert to the department, as the noble Baroness's amendment suggests, the department would still have to depend for its expertise on the Environment Agency's advice.
So that would not avoid pressurising the Environment Agency; it would merely lead to a degree of duplication between the department's responsibilities and the expert advice and guidance from the Environment Agency. I am therefore not persuaded that such a change is necessary.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I heard what the Minister said, but I can imagine a situation where if the Secretary of State had responsibility, he or she would have more clout than the Environment Agency to get things done more quickly than at present. I will probably have to come back to the matter. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness O'Cathain Baroness O'Cathain moved Amendment No. 172:
After Clause 91, insert the following new clause—
"LIABILITY OF OWNERS ETC FOR CHARGES IN PRESCRIBED CASES
(1) In section 144 of the WIA (relating to the liability of occupiers for charges), in subsection (1), after "of this section" there is inserted "and of section 144AA below".
(2) After section 144 of the WIA there is inserted—
"144AA LIABILITY OF OWNERS ETC FOR CHARGES IN PRESCRIBED CASES
(1) In respect of any premises of a class prescribed for the purposes of this section, section 144 above shall take effect as if for the references throughout that section to the occupier or the occupation of premises there were substituted references to the owner or ownership of such premises.
(2) Regulations made for the purposes of subsection (1) above may also modify or extend the application of that subsection in one or more of the following respects by providing that—

(a) in relation to any specified types of premises within the class of premises prescribed for the purposes of subsection (1) above, for the references to the owners and ownership of such specified premises, there shall be substituted references to such other categories of persons and to such rights as may be prescribed by the regulations;

(b) specified classes of persons who are—

(i) owners of classes of premises prescribed for the purposes of subsection (1) above, or

(ii) within those categories of persons prescribed for the purposes of subsection (2)(a) above,

shall be excluded from the application of the regulations;

(c) the owner or occupier of any premises of a class prescribed for the purposes of subsection (1) above which are provided with any service by a relevant undertaker in the course of carrying out its functions shall, when requested in writing to do so by the

271
undertaker, provide the undertaker with such information as may be prescribed concerning the ownership or occupation of those premises;

(d) such statutory undertakers or public bodies as may be prescribed shall, when requested in writing to do so by a relevant undertaker, provide the undertaker with such information as may be prescribed concerning the current or former ownership or occupation of any premises of a class prescribed for the purposes of subsection (1) above which are or have been provided with any service by the undertaker in the course of carrying out its functions.""

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the purpose of the amendment is to remedy a deficiency in the water industry legislation. It does not define who is the water industry customer in houses in multiple occupation; for instance, holiday lets, bedsits, lodgings or bed-and-breakfast accommodation. It is important that all water industry customers should be properly defined so that relationships can be established and, in particular, so that customers who receive water and sewerage services can be charged for those services and any debt can be collected.
The Water Industry Act 1991 gives statutory water and sewerage undertakers—the water companies—the power to levy water and sewerage charges on the occupiers of properties supplied with water or drained directly or indirectly into a public sewer. That is consistent with the statutory duty on water companies to provide water and sewerage services to the occupiers of such premises under Section 144(1).
The Water Industry Act, with all its amendments, does not define the meaning of the word "occupier". In many cases, that is not a difficulty, but it is a serious problem for houses in multiple occupation. Without a clear definition of "occupier", water and sewage undertakers are having difficulties imposing charges on houses in multiple occupation. Property owners operate such properties as commercial businesses. The existence of a water supply is required to render the property lettable, and in many cases has been provided at the request of the owner.
Owners argue that they are not responsible for charges and that the water companies should bill the occupiers. However, there is no requirement on them to tell the industry who the occupiers are. Moreover, in many situations the tenants' occupation is far too transient and temporary to enable a water company to levy charges to each multiple occupant. Indeed, water companies would be in breach of privacy if they inquired on a monthly basis about the number of tenants or bedsitters in each lodging for the past month, whether they were single or a couple and therefore what fraction of the bill attributable to the property could be sent to each named individual. That simply does not make sense, but that is the ridiculous situation that directly results from a lack in a definition in law of the term "occupier".
The water industry has sought legal opinion and has been advised by Queen's Counsel that the definition of the term "occupier" in cases of multiple occupation can be secured only through further legislation. The water industry is in a unique situation in that companies have a statutory duty to supply, whether or
272
not they are paid by their customers. In that respect, their legal situation is similar to that of local authorities, which provide services such as rubbish collection to individual properties and to people living in them, irrespective of whether council tax has been paid.
The amendment draws on the solution that enables local authorities to levy council tax in cases of multiple occupation. It provides for regulations to define the body of individuals liable to pay water or sewage charges for particular properties by establishing a clear definition of the term "occupier". There is, therefore, an in-built flexibility as to which properties will be affected. The liable individual could be the owner or someone else as determined by regulation. The amendment would also require the owner or occupier of a class of dwellings prescribed by regulations to provide the statutory undertaker with information concerning the ownership and occupation of those dwellings. That would be useful where water companies needed information to ascertain who was the occupier in the case of a particular property.
Importantly, the amendment would not impose a liability on housing associations and local authorities where the usual single landlord tenant relationship exists. Also, it would not change the direct relationship that exists between any person using tap water who needs to get in touch with his or her local water company on matters to do with the actual water supply.
There is a good case for changes in primary legislation. The failure of the water industry to recover costs from the people using multiple occupation premises places a significant additional and unfair burden on the customers who are charged and do pay their bills. Domestic customer debt, generally, has been estimated at between £5 and £10 per customer per year. Debts from multiple occupancy dwellings account for a disproportionate share of this burden. We must remember that multiple occupancy of the transient kind is very often practised by upwardly mobile professionals and similar groups who cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be described as vulnerable or in long-term poverty.
I have some figures which have been estimated from data provided by three large water companies, Northumbrian Water, Essex and Suffolk Water, and United Utilities. Together, those companies represent 11 million customers out of 52 million served by the industry in England and Wales—more than one in five customers. The figures represent both measured and unmeasured households, in both urban and rural areas, both in the north and the south of the country. We find that, within the industry, approximately 6 per cent of chargeable properties are houses in multiple occupation, but those properties accounted for 13 per cent of household debt written off in 2001–2. That means that those properties account for more than double the debt cost that the water industry incurs for other kinds of property. That is before we look at outstanding debt, not yet written off, which has been steadily growing in the last few years, when sanctions and terminated supply were stopped.
Water industry debt is a complex problem which needs to be addressed from several perspectives. The figures I have just quoted show that there is a special problem with houses in multiple occupation, which stems from a lack of definition in law for the customer receiving water services and responsible for paying water charges. The deficiency can be remedied only through targeted specific primary legislation. I beg to move.
11.15 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for bringing forward a very important amendment for us to consider. I shall not go into the detail that my noble friend covered. The amendment asks who is the water industry's customer in houses in multiple occupation. That is a problem that needs addressing.
My noble friend clearly stated that within the industry approximately 6 per cent of chargeable properties are houses in multiple occupation but that those properties accounted for 13 per cent of debt written off in 2001 and 2002. Those properties account for more than double the debt cost which the water industry incurs from other kinds of property. It is an important issue. I hope that if the Government are not able to accept my noble friend's amendment in its present form, they will recognise publicly the difficulty that afflicts water companies and come up with their own proposals for moving forward on the matter.
Lord Whitty: My Lords. I recognise the difficulties caused by the problem of debt and how it is often related to absconding tenants. But the solution the noble Baroness puts forward is a revolutionary proposal with rather wide ramifications. Effectively it would make landlords responsible for their tenants' debts. So far as I am aware there is no other situation where that is the case. It has ramifications in relation to other suppliers of services such as utilities and other private services. I am not sure that it benefits water conservation. Presumably in metered premises—many HMOs are metered—there is no incentive for the tenant to save water if the landlord always stumps up for the bill. Therefore, I am not sure that the amendment would achieve many of its aims but in any case it raises such wide issues that I do not think that one could introduce such an enticing but radical concept.
It is not just a simple question of redefining who is the client. The matter goes to the heart of the landlord/tenant relationship in the context we are discussing and in other contexts. I do not accept that we should adopt the measure in respect of water debt. Difficult though that situation is for many water companies, we should try to find another solution.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I accept the comments he has just made about the difficulty in regard to landlords and tenants. As a landlord I worry about that, but my let property is not a house in multiple occupation. There is a serious problem here that needs addressing. This Bill may not be the right place to do that. However, I support my
274
noble friend's amendment as the matter we are discussing is a growing problem. As we said in earlier debates on the Bill, it is easy for people to walk away from the responsibility of paying their water bills.
Perhaps the time has come to give additional thought as to how this kind of problem can be overcome. If it is a case of non-payment for gas or electricity, the supply gets cut off and there is no charge for it. But water is still there; the water has to be supplied. Although I fully understand and accept the Minister's logic and I declared an interest as a landlord, there are problems here. I hope that the Government will reconsider the matter. I am not suggesting that they come back with another amendment. The problem is long term and needs to be addressed as it will not go away. Unfortunately, it is on the increase. That is why I support the thrust of what my noble friend is trying to achieve in defining where the buck stops.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend. I am also grateful to the Minister for his comments. He said that the amendment would not benefit water conservation or the environment, but the problem is a drain on the resources of every customer in the land. We all pay more for water because of what are called wanton non-payers—they are not poverty non-payers—who seem to be getting away scot-free.
We ought to do something to tackle the problem. Other ways have been suggested, and perhaps we should look at them, although it is too late to introduce them to the Bill. We are hoisting the warning cone to say that the situation that has gone on since the sanction to cut off water was taken away cannot go on. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 92 [Devolution: Wales]:
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting Lord Evans of Temple Guiting moved Amendment No. 172A:
Page 116, line 42, at end insert—
"(g) the function of the Secretary of State under section 16A(5)(a);","
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 93 [Minor and consequential amendments and repeals]:
Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 173 and 174:
Page 117, line 19, after "enactments" insert "and instrument"
Page 117, line 19, after "repealed" insert "or revoked"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Baroness O'Cathain Baroness O'Cathain moved Amendment No. 175:
Page 181, line 48, at end insert—
"( ) In Schedule 4A—

(a) for paragraph 1(2)(a) there is substituted—

"(a) a private dwelling-house constituting the whole or any part of household premises.";

275

(b) at the end of paragraph 1 there is added—

"(3) In this paragraph, "household premises" shall have the same meaning as in section 17C of this Act.""
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment corrects a deficiency in the Water Industry Act 1991 which was introduced through the Water Industry Act 1999. The amendment would make it easier to distinguish between business and domestic customers by extending the clear-cut definition in Schedule 4 to the Bill to other parts of the Water Industry Act where definitional clarity is needed.
The Water Industry Act 1999 amended the 1991 Act so as to provide two new rights for domestic customers—the right not to be disconnected for non-payment of water charges and the right not to be metered compulsorily in normal circumstances. Both those new rights require that a clear distinction is made between domestic and business customers. Unfortunately, the Act did not clearly distinguish between domestic and business customers in the case of mixed-use properties—for example, where a landlord lives on top of a pub, a janitor lives on industrial premises, or a groundsman resides at a golf club.
In a letter to Water UK of 11th January 2000, the then Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions said that, in the case of mixed premises,
"only the courts can decide definitely what the law means".
That of course is correct of all legislation, but we should now seize the opportunity to improve the quality of our laws by removing as much uncertainty as possible.
The uncertainty is damaging not only for water companies, but for customers, who do not know which legal provisions apply to them and whether they are to be considered as business or domestic customers. An example is the owner of a large family home who decides to convert it to a bed-and-breakfast establishment while still living in a small flat at the top. After conversion, the house becomes a mixed-use property. I understand that that happens regularly in the South West. An important financial consideration for such a customer is whether he or she will go on paying the same water charge based on the ancient rateable value of the family house, or whether the property will be compulsorily metered as a business property. That may make a significant difference to the customer's operating costs; therefore the law needs to state clearly what the situation is.
As the Bill contains a renewed attempt at creating definitional clarity between business and domestic mixed-use premises, in connection with the extension of competition in the water industry, I propose the amendment to extend the improved distinction to other parts of water industry legislation where the distinction is important for industry customers. I beg to move.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, when the Water Industry Act 1999 was passed, there was considerable pressure
276
on this area of the legislation to protect consumers and give a wide definition. I would be reluctant therefore to take on something that would appear to narrow the definition of that protection. Even if we were to consider the redefinition of what was enacted in 1999, the substitution of a definition of "premises" in Schedule 4 would not be appropriate. That use is for the quite different purpose of distinguishing those customers to whom competition will apply, and will be set out in regulations. It would be difficult to frame a definition which tried to achieve different policy purposes.
To take just one example, the 1999 Act does not protect second homes against disconnection. On the other hand, second homes are still within the definition for the competition regime and that is appropriate. One cannot just transfer that definition into an improved definition in connection with disconnection and other protections for the consumer.
I am not persuaded that this is a sensible way to go, although I recognise some of the concerns behind the amendment.
Baroness O'Cathain: My Lords, I suppose that I could say, "Thanks, but no thanks". I hear what the noble Lord says. At this hour of the night I shall not get into a great argument with him. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment. by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 176:
Page 184. line 19. at end insert—
"Metropolis Water Act 1852 (c. 84)
Section 1 of the Metropolis Water Act 1852 (restriction on sources of supply of water to London) shall cease to have effect."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment is linked with Amendment No. 180—which is also linked with Amendment No. 188 tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Whitty. I shall be brief. I have been more fortunate in this amendment than my noble friend, ploughing heavily away on some of hers.
We raised this issue in Committee. I am grateful that the Minister realised that there was a problem. The Government have reacted to my amendment in bringing forward Amendment No. 188. At this stage, I should like to record my thanks to the Government. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, I am very pleased to accept Amendments Nos. 176 and 180. As the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, has noted in her amendment, the restriction on abstraction from the Thames below Teddington Lock is no longer required to protect public health. To this end, Amendment No. 188 has been tabled by the Government as an amendment to the Long Title of the Bill to accommodate this. I commend the amendment to the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendments Nos. 177 to 179:
Page 206, line 21, column 2, at beginning insert—

"In section 21(9), the words from "in that subsection" to the end."

Page 207, leave out line 9.
Page 207, leave out line 13.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 180:
Page 207. line 26, at end insert—
"Metropolis Water Act 1852(c. Section 1." 84)
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendments Nos. 181 and 182:
Page 208, column 2, leave out lines 32 to 34.
Page 208, line 46, at end insert—

"National Assembly for Wales (Transfer of Functions) Order 1999 (SI 1999/672)

In Schedule 1, in the entry relating to the WIA—

(a) in the paragraph relating to functions under sections 2, 5 (etc), the references to section 2, sections 18 to 22, sections 68 to 70, section 93A and section 205,

(b) the paragraph relating to section 28(4)."

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 94 [Specific transitional and transitory provisions]:
Lord Dixon-Smith Lord Dixon-Smith moved Amendment No. 183:
Page 118, line 7, at end insert—
"( ) Any person who—

(a) before the coming into force of any provision of this Act was not required under Chapter 2 of Part 2 of the WRA to have a licence in respect of any abstraction, but

(b) following the coming into force of this Act does require such a licence in respect of that abstraction,

shall make an application for the licence within two years of the coining into force of section 7 of this Act, and the licence will be deemed to be granted on the terms of the application until the final and lawful determination of the application."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in the absence of the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland of Houndwood, I formally move the amendment. It was considered worthwhile doing this in order to get the Government's reaction. I beg to move.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, Amendment No. 183 deals with transitional matters relating to applications that will need to be made for licences, where activities are coming under control for the first time.
What is being proposed here affects all such activities and sets out in principle what the Government intend to happen anyway. We have stated as much in Taking Water Responsibly. However, legal advice is that such matters are not necessary on the face of the Bill and that the proper
278
place for these is in the transitional regulations that are provided for under Clause 95 of the Bill. I can assure noble Lords that appropriate provisions comparable to this amendment will be incorporated within transitional regulations that will be placed before Parliament in due course.
Amendment No. 185 seeks to ensure that the mining, quarrying and engineering construction industries will be included in compensation arrangements should a licence not be granted. As I said when this issue was raised in Grand Committee, where any previously exempt activity is unable to continue as a result of the introduction of any new controls by the Bill, Clause 95 already provides that regulations can deal with the payment of compensation.
We recognise that in some instances existing quarrying operations will require an abstraction licence for dewatering only once the Bill has come into force. We also recognise that under the current clause compensation may not be possible in those circumstances. We are still considering how to address this potential gap and will table a suitable amendment at Third Reading. With those reassurances, I hope that noble Lords will feel that the amendments need not be pressed tonight.
There is one other related issue to which I must draw attention. In considering the nature of the risks and harm or damage leading to what is to be classed as an "emergency abstraction" by quarries, and so on, we have identified the need to amend the provisions of Clause 7. That, in turn, has led us to consider further the scope of environmental damage in Clause 27. I take this opportunity to inform noble Lords that we shall bring forward amendments to both clauses at Third Reading.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, on behalf of the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland of Houndwood, I can only say a very heartfelt "thank you".
Lord Livsey of Talgarth: My Lords, I also add my thanks.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.30 p.m.
Clause 95 [Powers to make further supplementary, consequential and transitional provision, etc]:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 184:
Page 118, line 19, after second "the" insert"Environment"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 185 not moved.]
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 186:
Page 118, line 32, after second "the" insert "Water Services Regulation"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Byford Baroness Byford moved Amendment No. 187:
After Clause 96, insert the following new clause—
"CONSOLIDATION OF WATER-RELATED LEGISLATION
Within one year of the date that this Act receives Royal Assent, the Secretary of State shall publish a draft Bill for consultation, consolidating the legislation relating to water."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we return to the issue that we raised in Committee when we stated very clearly that we were all having difficulty in working through the many Acts which have been revised along the way. Therefore, Amendment No. 187 states that, following Royal Assent, the Secretary of State will consolidate the Bill with previous water-related Acts to form a composite body of legislation on water-related topics.
On 28th May on the "PM" programme on Radio 4, it was reported that Romano Prodi had commented that the draft European constitution document was a wasted opportunity and that it was, in effect, too bland and anodyne. The programme's presenters interviewed Patricia Hewitt. They began by suggesting that those comments justified the Government's refusal to allow a referendum on the subject of the draft constitution. Miss Hewitt's response was that the draft was merely the putting together of four different treaties and that the action was "modernising" and "clarifying". Her whole attitude was that this draft represented some form of common sense and good practice.
We are led by a Government who utter "education, education, education". Another mantra is the oft-repeated one concerning "joined-up government". When the subject of consolidation of water legislation was discussed in Committee, the Minister was dismissive. He stated at col. GC 179:
"Indeed, the convention is that the priority for consolidation Acts is determined by the Law Commission rather than by a government department".—[Official Report, 29/4/03; col. GC 179.]
This is not a government department. This is—or I hope that it will soon be proved to be—the will of the House. Anyone who has tried to follow the responses from the Benches opposite, let alone the wording of the Bill, will be only too aware of the muddle that water legislation is in already. On top of that, as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller said, we will have the Water Framework Directive.
The water industry is regulated by the following Acts, which are mentioned in Schedule 9 to the Bill: the Reservoirs Act 1975, the Water Act 1989, the Environmental Protection Act 1990, the Water Industry Act 1991, the Water Resources Act 1991, the Competition and Service (Utilities) Act 1992, the Environment Act 1995, the Competition Act 1998 and the Utilities Act 2000. That says nothing of the changes
280
that were made in between. If one then goes through the record of changes that have been made to, for example, the 1991 Water Resources Act, one finds that it is derived from a further set of laws including the Water Act 1989, the Water Resources Acts 1963 and 1968, the Water Act 1973 and the Drought Act 1976. That is quite a mouthful. At this time of night, I say, "Well done, Hazel, for getting that mouthful together!".
That is confusing and I am glad to see that the Minister is slightly amused. Even the army of civil servants who are employed in their various ways and at different times on this Bill—we have been well supported by civil servants throughout our debates on the Bill—have found it difficult to point us quickly to the correct source or reference. I believe that it is part of our duty as a revising Chamber to ensure, so far as we are able, that the law is clear, understandable and enforceable. I cannot in all conscience say that of this body of legislation. I beg to move.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I am pleased to support the amendment and must say, "Well done", to the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, for listing all of the Acts to which we have had to refer during the course of the Bill. Ultimately, it is not for our convenience if there is a consolidation Bill but it is very much for the convenience of the eventual users of legislation, be they industry, individuals or consumers. It would take some time and effort on the part of civil servants to consolidate the Bill but that would be a service. In this country we are not good at making our legislation comprehensible to the general public. We must improve on that; it would be extremely good if we started with water, which is of such general interest to everyone. For those reasons, I am pleased to support the amendment.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I have considerable sympathy with the intentions of the amendment. I was not being dismissive earlier; I was merely stating the constitutional convention that consolidation of legislation and establishing priorities therefor are a matter for the Law Commission rather than the Government or the House when they react to one particular Bill.
The situation in relation to water is complicated but I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, will agree that local government legislation or the criminal justice system could do with a bit of consolidation here and there. I am sure that there are many other areas that we could think of, even at this time of night, that are rather lacking in clarity for legislators, let alone the average citizen.
It is normal practice at the end of each Bill for us to report to the Law Commissioners about whether issues of consolidation are raised. I shall ensure that the House's views are brought to the attention of the Law Commission. Indeed, noble Lords will be aware

281
that the Select Committee on the Constitution earlier expressed concern about the difficulties that were thrown up by the Bill. Although it was reassured by my statement that I should pass those concerns on to the Law Commission, that underlines the need for me to do so. I hope that that will be sufficient for this time of night.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. As he knows, when we originally met to look at the Bill, the matter was a huge problem, because we had to go to one authority, and then look at Butterworth, and then we had to look at something else. I am sincerely grateful for his comments that he will refer the contributions that have been made, particularly regarding the amendment. That is an extremely encouraging note when we are drawing towards a close—although we have not finished—at this late stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
In the Title:
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton moved Amendment No. 188:
Line 11, after "England;" insert "to repeal section 1 of the Metropolis Water Act 1852:"
On Question, amendment agreed to.

Water Bill [H.L.]
11.40 p.m.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That, on Wednesday 9th July, the Water Bill be recommitted to a Committee of the Whole House in respect of any new clauses and related amendments dealing with fluoridation and that Standing Order 47 (No two stages of a Bill to he taken on one day) be dispensed with to enable the remaining stages of the Bill to be taken on the same day as Committee (on Re-commitment).—(Lord Whiny.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Licensing Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons with certain amendments not insisted upon, with a Lords amendment in lieu of words left out of the Bill by a Commons amendment agreed to, with an amendment not insisted on but with amendments proposed in lieu thereof, and with an amendment insisted upon and a Lords amendment disagreed to but with an amendment in lieu thereof; the Commons amendments were ordered to be printed.
House adjourned at nineteen minutes before midnight.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the Local Government Bill
(Eighth Day)
Tuesday, 24th June 2003.
The Committee met at a half past three of the clock.
[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lyell) in the Chair.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lyell): I remind the Committee that, if there is a Division in the Chamber, we shall adjourn as soon as the Division hells have rung and resume after 10 minutes. I am advised that there are other activities in the Chamber.
Baroness O'Cathainmoved Amendment No. 221C:
After Clause 116, insert the following new clause—
"CONTROL OF UNLICENSED SEX ESTABLISHMENTS
(1) Sections 2 to 8 of the City of Westminster Act 1996 (c. viii) (control of unlicensed sex establishments) shall have effect, for the purposes of this Act, as if they were incorporated in this Act with the substitution—

(a) for references to Westminster City Council of references to a local authority, and

(b) for references to the City of Westminster of references to the local authority's area.

(2) In this section. "local authority" means—

(a) a county council;

(b) a county borough council;

(c) a district council;

(d) a London borough council;

(e) the Common Council of the City of London;

(f) the Council of the Isles of Scilly."

The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 221C relates to the control of unlicensed sex establishments. I should say at the start that the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, had previous notice of the amendment by way of a letter and briefing sent on 7th April. My noble friend Lady Blatch mentioned that at Second Reading on 3rd April. It should come as no surprise.
The background to the amendment is the operation of Schedule 3 to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982. The provisions give powers for controlling sex establishments, as defined by the Act, including the regulation and licensing of sex shops. Many local authorities have adopted that particular piece of legislation and regularly receive applications for the licensing of or renewal of a licence for a sex shop. The procedure for the applications is clearly set out in Schedule 3, and, on the basis of that legislation, the relevant council can refuse or grant an application for a licence or for the renewal of a licence for a sex shop as it considers appropriate.
Research among local authorities, however, shows that problems are encountered when an application for a licence or a renewal is refused by a local authority and the sex shop continues to trade as an unlicensed establishment. I am told that, on refusal of a licence or renewal of a licence, the shop owners will make certain cosmetic changes to the stock layout in the premises and then contend that they do not fall within the scope of the relevant legislation because the business on their premises is not one,
"which consists to a significant degree"
of selling sex articles.
The wording that I quoted comes directly from paragraph 4(1) of Schedule 3 to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982, to which I have already referred. Apparently the owner will argue that a licence is unnecessary. The onus is then placed on the local authority to make a decision as to whether a prosecution should follow relating to trading without a licence. This difficulty has been encountered by many local authorities across the country. My research shows that in Bournemouth in particular, at least two if not three sex shops have been trading without a licence for some 10 years without any further action being taken by the authority.
Towards the end of the 1990s the situation in the Westminster City Council area, which of course includes the infamous area of Soho, became so had that the council went to the trouble and expense of obtaining their own Act of Parliament, now known as the City of Westminster Act 1996. That piece of legislation gives the council extra powers relating to the closure of premises trading without a sex shop licence. I understand that the council considers this legislation to be of great help in regulating the trade of unlicensed sex shops.
The legislation requires Westminster City Council to come to the conclusion that a premises is being used as a sex establishment without a licence, and as such is trading in breach of Schedule 3 to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982. The council may then decide to serve a closure notice in respect of the premises. I understand from officials at Westminster City Council that they have found that the service of a closure notice usually leads to the owners of the shop closing the premises and, moreover, that very few such closure notices are tested in the courts. However, when the closure notice is contested, I am told that usually a successful conclusion is reached in those proceedings so far as the council is concerned.
One can understand why Westminster City Council felt that it needed extra powers in relation to the areas for which it is responsible, but I understand also that the chief trading standards officer for a neighbouring authority, Camden Council, would welcome an extension of these powers to cover its area. Camden Council anticipates that if the powers were extended to cover Camden, then both councils, Camden and Westminster, would be able to work closely on enforcement and closure proceedings.
One difficulty with regard to having a piece of legislation such as the City of Westminster Act 1996 on the statute book is that it simply moves the problem over the local authority boundary into neighbouring authorities; in this case, Camden. The purpose of this amendment is to extend the powers granted to the City of Westminster by the City of Westminster Act 1996 to cover all other local authorities which have adopted the powers conferred on them by Schedule 3 to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982.
Members of the Committee will appreciate that this is essentially a probing amendment. It may be that further consideration needs to be given to its implementation, including consideration of whether the City of Westminster Act 1996 should be repealed if the amendment were to be included in the Bill now being considered. Bearing in mind the positive reaction from Camden Council and other councils which have been approached on this over the past few months, it does not seem unreasonable to consider extensions of the powers contained in the City of Westminster Act 1996 to cover all local authorities.
I wish to inform Members of the Grand Committee that, shortly before we commenced our proceedings today, I had a discussion with the Minister about this matter. He is to respond with certain comments that will result in my not pressing the amendment any further at this stage. However, I move it in the hope that we shall be able to solve this problem for the longer term. I beg to move.
Baroness Hamwee: Perhaps the noble Baroness can tell the Committee whether there has been any consultation with the Local Government Association. I well understand the problems with individual boroughs, such as Camden, which no doubt is concerned about the King's Cross area. I am not trying to make any point, other than to ask that question. However, when looking at the 1996 Act, it is a sad situation that one immediately starts thinking, "What will this cost the local authority to carry out?" So, I do not suggest that the problem the noble Baroness has highlighted is not one, but that there is a context to every additional power given to a local authority, welcome as the power itself may be.
Baroness Blatch: I rise very briefly to say that I support my noble friend. She has put the case very well. I think that at least one answer in reply to the question posed by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, is that of course it is a permissive power. It can use it or not use it as the case may be, but it does mean that if it is a particular problem—particularly in city areas—then at least the local authority will have a mechanism to do something about it. That is why I support the amendment.
Baroness Hanham: I, too, would like formally to support the amendment moved by my noble friend Lady O'Cathain. This issue is extremely important. Interestingly, the City of Westminster was the only authority which initially pushed for this procedure,
GC 62
but it was for very specific reasons, as my noble friend Lady O'Cathain pointed out. It is certainly true that once you deny something in one area and it is available in another, the problem begins to leap out. It is a problem with drugs, sex offences and with all kinds of things where there is prohibition in one area.
With regard to the point of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, licensing enforcement officers are already dealing, to some extent, with these establishments. So I do not suppose that a little more effort will cost all that much more. My feeling is that this provision would probably be widely welcomed, perhaps not everywhere, but certainly, as my noble friend Lady Blatch said, in those areas that are affected; and it would be a permissive power which the authorities could employ. So I am glad to support the amendment.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful to all noble Baronesses who have spoken in this short discussion. I should start with two apologies. First, I apologise for not being my noble friend Lord Rooker. He is away on ministerial business. As we have had to slot in this extra session today he is unable to be here. I am afraid that I shall have to be a rather poor substitute.
My other apology, or perhaps note of regret, I should enter on the record is that we simply cannot accept the amendment which, as the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain says, is by way of a probing amendment. We recognise that the amendment raises important issues and deserves serious consideration.
It is simply too late to give proper consideration to wholly new proposals, even though of course they are to some extent tried and tested, at this very late and advanced stage of the Bill. The amendment in itself is also technically defective because the scope of the City of Westminster Act 1996 cannot be extended in the way in which the amendment suggests.
More importantly, the powers in that Act were chosen by that authority to meet its own particular circumstances. They might not necessarily be the right powers to meet the circumstances in other parts of the country, so, before legislation used locally is applied nationally, we would have to undertake some very careful consultation with local government and other interested parties. I was interested in the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about the Local Government Association. I was working for it back in 1976, so it fell in my area of responsibility. I do not actually recall that we had any national discussion at that time.
However, we recognise the importance of the issue that has been raised. For all those reasons, while the Government cannot support the current amendment or agree to bring forward their own in the present Bill, we are prepared to say that in the spirit of being helpful—and we do want to be helpful—we will endeavour to follow the issue separately outside the terms of the Bill and its discussions. We will be willing, for instance, to raise the issue directly with the Local Government Association and if it canvasses support and sees relevance in taking action along the lines suggested in the amendment, we are prepared to work

GC 63
with it, with interested parties, and, in particular, with those councils that have a lot of expertise in dealing with the difficulties, to see whether specific proposals might be developed for legislation at some future date. I am sure the noble Baroness will not expect me to be specific about when that might be. That is not something that Governments do: they do not commit themselves absolutely to parliamentary timetables for particular pieces of legislation.
However, we support the general thrust of the amendment. We can see the relevance and importance of the issue. We are impressed by how the Westminster City Council Act has worked. We are more than happy to be proactive in working with the LGA and those other interested associations—perhaps the Association of London Government which will have an interest in this and other parties—to see what proposals we can develop along the lines set out for future legislation.
Baroness O'Cathain: First I want to thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this short debate. I also want to thank the Minister for the spirit of his reply. I want to put down two markers. As regards the comment that the proposal was too late, in reality this issue was flagged up on 3rd April. This is now 24th June, so I do not really buy that one. I just do not think that it was. I am glad that the Government see that the amendment has merit.
The other issue regards the Minister's comment that the amendment is defective because the 'Westminster City Council Act cannot be extended. Again, I have to put up a marker. I hope that this is not a delaying tactic by saying that this is in the "all too difficult" basket. There is a huge feeling that this must be tackled, and tackled now.
The Minister is wily enough—he knew perfectly well that I would ask him when they would do something about it—and he got in before me. He said that he knew I would not expect him to commit on that. But I was pleased that he used the word "proactive" because I hope that that means not more than a few months. I will tease this one out further, I suspect.
In answer to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, I have not contacted the Local Government Association but I do not think it would take a lot of time. The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham. spoke of the cost involved. Some local authorities have these people anyway but, whatever the cost, it will not be excessive and will surely largely repay the current difficulties. The situation makes it very difficult for local authorities to conduct business in their areas. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Hamweemoved Amendment No. 221CA:
After Clause 116, insert the following new clause—
"MEETINGS AND PROCEDURE OF THE LONDON ASSEMBLY
(1) Section 52 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 (c. 29) (meetings of the whole Assembly) is amended as follows.
(2) After subsection (3) there is inserted—
"(3A) A meeting of the Assembly held under subsection (3) shall not be held within 28 days of the date when the last such meeting was held."
(3) In subsection (6)(b) for "28" there is substituted "14"."
The noble Baroness said: I have already declared an interest as a member, and currently chair, of the London Assembly. I wish to make it absolutely clear that neither this nor the following amendment are tabled with any degree of political animosity towards the current mayor. Members of the Committee may say that simply by saying that I am confessing to it, but that is not the case. I do not know how I can say it clearly enough.
Both of my amendments relate to matters which need rectification, if I can put it that way, from the position in the Greater London Authority Act. Amendment No. 221CA relates to the notice required to be given for the mayor's question time. Subject to a point I will make in a moment, the mayor is required to submit himself to questions from the Assembly on a regular basis. The Act provides that at least 28 clear days' notice of' each mayor's question time has to be given. That in itself would not be a problem. Indeed, as Members of the Committee will imagine, the current practice is to set the diary at least a year in advance. However, notice cannot he given until after the previous mayor's question time has been held. 'This problem was spotted quite early on when GLA officers started working on the diary. It was raised with officials at the Government Office at a very early date.
As I believe and recollect, the legislation was designed to stop mayor's question times being bunched together. That is entirely appropriate. They take place so that the mayor is held to account on a regular basis throughout the year. One can imagine that if the mayor and the majority of the Assembly were, at some date, to be of the same political party, that party and the mayor might wish not to he held accountable regularly throughout the year at appropriate periods.
I have tried to design the amendment to meet this point by specifying the period of notice and the number of days which have to elapse between meetings—that is, by providing for 14 days' notice of a meeting and meetings not to be held within 28 days of each other.
The issue has become topical and practical and it is a matter only of good luck that the GLA has been able to deal with it. Because someone did not look in the diary, the mayor has booked a holiday this year at a date that coincides with the July mayor's question time. There is an irony in that because, although the Assembly is obliged to hold mayor's question time 10 times a year, the mayor is not obliged to attend. He must provide a written report beforehand and there are sanctions if he misses a string of MQTs, but he does not actually have to pitch up.
This is not a new point. Whether or not my drafting is right. I hope that the opportunity—they come along infrequently enough—presented by the Bill can be taken to sort out this small, practical but difficult point. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: As ever, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, has set out her case clearly. As she explained to the Committee, each year the Assembly is required to hold 10 meetings at which it considers a mayoral report and puts questions to the mayor. There is a requirement that at least 28 days' notice be given of such a meeting—which has the practical effect that meetings will always be at least 28 days apart—other than for the first meeting after an election when the notice required is as soon as is reasonably practicable. The amendment would reduce the notice period for meetings from 28 to 14 days while still ensuring that the meetings were at least 28 days apart.
The current 28-day notice period gives the mayor time to prepare his report for consideration at the meetings and for him and others to prepare for the questions that he will be asked. It also gives members of the public time to make arrangements to attend those meetings if they so wish. The amendment would not make it easier to fit those 10 meetings into a year—that is the first important point—but it would halve the notice period given for each meeting. In our view, that may create practical difficulties for those wanting to attend meetings.
The amendment would not solve the problem and could create further difficulty in that insufficient time would elapse for people to realise that the next round of mayor's question time and reporting was upon them. I understand the difficulty but I cannot see the amendment as a practical solution to the problem.
Earl Russell: As I was going up the stair, I met a mayor who was not there. He was not there again today. I wish to God he would go away.
This is a wonderful example of the use of the best brains in the country to think up more and more ways of saying no to practical parliamentary amendments. Of course there are difficulties. There are difficulties with every possible solution. One sometimes thinks that Ministers employ those in Whitehall to provide a problem for every solution. If the Minister thinks that the amendment does not provide the solution, what does he think does?
Baroness Hamwee: I was hoping that the Minister might respond to my noble friend.
When the Bill was originally presented to Parliament—this shows the mathematical ability of those at the other end of the Corridor—no one noticed that 12 meetings a year, which was in the original draft, with 28 days' gap between them would provide even more difficulty. I clearly recall the noble Lord, Lord Tope, and I sitting on the Front Bench saying, -This simply will not work". That is why the number of
GC 66
mayor's question time was reduced to 10. It was not because we do not want adequately to hold to account any mayor.
The Minister, who is a politician to his fingertips even if he is not now an elected politician, will understand that, in practical terms, April is not a good month for holding meetings, nor is August. Quite sensibly, the current arrangements are that those are the two down months. However, the draftsmen who dreamt up a work schedule for members and for the mayor—which, one suspects, they might not necessarily have themselves welcomed—have left us with a problem.
My noble friend is right—as ever, he puts it more effectively than I—and I suggest to the Minister that there must be a solution to this problem. The solution may be 28 days instead of 14. If the Minister would like officials from the Assembly and from the mayor's office to talk this through in front of him, let us have a go.
Of course one must give adequate notice of meetings, but one can give notice while allowing oneself some latitude. The mayor is required to report, but to hold meetings where we cannot have the mayor there—as the Committee can imagine, there is some hilarity as to whether the deputy mayor will make an appropriate substitute—is not a sensible way to hold the mayor of the capital city to account.
If no solution is available today, can I come and talk to the Minister and to his officials? This is a silly point and we need to bottom it out.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I do not want to labour the issue. It is not in our interests to do that this afternoon. I understand that there have been discussions between officials from the Assembly and the ODPM. I am prepared to make the obvious point that we are happy to continue those discussions to see whether a practical and workable solution can be found.
I recognise the importance of ensuring that we have protected time during the cycle of the political year. It is important that the mayor is given the opportunity to explain himself and that people are given the opportunity to question him as the legislation intended. After all, it is all about making sure that he is fully accountable.
There is no way that I will enter into a debate today about whether the deputy mayor is an appropriate substitute.
Baroness Hamwee: I hope that we can try to sort it out before the end of the Bill's passage. As I said, such opportunities are few and far between. As it has been reported to me—I may have misunderstood—such discussions as there have been, which have been with the Government Office rather than with the ODPM, have not particularly flagged up the problems let alone moved towards the solutions. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4 p.m.
Baroness Hamweemoved Amendment No. 221CB:
After Clause 116, insert the following new clause—
"MAYOR OF LONDON: OPENNESS
(1) After section 38 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 (c. 29) there is inserted—
"OPENNESS IN RELATION TO THE MAYOR
38A (1) Section 22 of the Local Government Act 2000 (c. 22) (access to information etc) shall have effect as if—

(a) the mayor was a local authority executive,

(b) a reference to an individual member of such an executive referred to either the mayor or to a; person or body mentioned in section 38(2) to whom an authorisation has been given by the mayor under section 38(1), and

(c) any occasion on which either the mayor or such a person or body exercises any function of the Authority (whether such a function is exercisable by him solely or by him jointly with the Assembly on the Authority's behalf) was a meeting of a local authority executive,

but with the modifications contained in subsections (2) to (4) below.
(2) Any reference in section 22 of that Act to a committee of a local authority executive, or to a sub-committee of such a committee, shall be disregarded.
(3) A reference in section 22 of that Act to an overview and scrutiny committee, or to a sub-committee of such a committee, is a reference—

(a) to the Assembly;

(b) if the Assembly has appointed a committee or committees under section 54, to such a committee or committees (being ordinary committees within the meaning of section 55(1)) as the Assembly shall designate under subsection (4).

(4) The Assembly shall designate a committee or committees for the purpose of discharging an overview and scrutiny committee's functions under section 22 of that Act, provided that section 54 shall not apply to its functions under this subsection."
(2) In section 420(8) of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 (regulations and orders) after "section 25;" there is inserted "section 38A;"."
The noble Baroness said: I would have expected this to be the more sensitive issue. I have already made the point that it is not party political. I told the current mayor that I was tabling the amendment and I made it clear to him that it related to the office of mayor, not his mayoralty.
The issue is openness and access to information and it is right to put on record that, although there have been criticisms on the part of the Assembly about openness on particular matters, the mayor makes his ten reports a year. There is now a system for regularly recording mayoral decisions and putting them in the public domain. I think it is fair to say that, within City Hall, work is in progress on this. Nevertheless, as a result of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 and the Local Government Act 2000 we have one executive in this country who is not subject to the access to information provisions. The Assembly, as the scrutiny arm of the GLA, has almost no executive powers at all.
The Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 does not apply to the mayor of London. Although the rules cover many bodies, including local authorities, fire and police authorities, regional development agencies and even three out of four of the GLA's own functional bodies, they do riot cover
GC 68
Transport for London—of which, under the legislative arrangements, the mayor himself is the chair. When the Government implemented their agenda for modernising local government, they introduced new access to information rules to safeguard transparency in the newly created executives. As I said, however, none of the safeguards were applied to the GLA.
The Government clearly appreciate that significant decisions taken by individual mayors or councillors in executive positions in local government should be open to public scrutiny and indeed to press scrutiny. The arrangements therefore require that notification be published in advance when key decisions are to be made so that the proposed decision is made in public. The agenda, reports about the proposal and a record of the eventual decision must be made public. I see no reason in principle why those protections should not apply to the mayor of London.
The Assembly's meetings, which are essentially scrutiny meetings, are open to the public, with advance copies of agendas, reports and minutes. However, it is the mayor's decisions that have a real and immediate impact on London and Londoners. At mayor's question time, to which I have just referred, the mayor decides what to include in his own report. He also has to make an annual report. Members of the Committee have probably received the rather large document which has recently been circulated. I received the document as "Baroness Hamwee" a considerable Lime before I received it as "Sally Hamwee, Member of the Assembly", but that is another matter. However, those arrangements are not adequate for the purposes that I am discussing.
My amendment will allow the Secretary of State to extend regulations on the transparency of decision making to the mayor of London, with a similar approach to a forward plan of future significant decisions. As I said, I appreciate that this matter is perhaps more sensitive than the previous one. It is perhaps right, therefore, to conclude by saying that I am not seeking to extend the Assembly's powers. I am not, for example, seeking to enable the Assembly to call in decisions, change statutory strategies or anything of that sort. However, I think it appropriate that we address why there is a difference in the openness provisions. When I mentioned the matter some time ago to a previous Minister, my comment that the situation had occurred was met with surprise, almost incredulity. I therefore look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Baroness has explained very well the current situation as she sees it. The amendment seeks to extend the access to information provisions and regulation-making powers that currently apply to principal local authorities operating executive arrangements, to apply also to the London mayor. These regulation-making provisions are to be found in Section 22 of the Local Government Act 2000, which enables the Secretary of State to make provision as to when meetings of local authority executives should he held in public and as to what records of such meetings should be kept and made available.

GC 69
There are already arrangements—in Sections 45, 52 and 58 of the Greater London Authority Act 1999—for making public the significant decisions made by the London mayor. The mayor, as we discussed earlier, has to make 10 reports per year to the assembly setting out the significant decisions he has taken since his last report and the reasons for those decisions. Those mayoral reports are discussed at meetings of the whole Assembly. As we have also discussed, the mayor has to attend those meetings and answer assembly members' questions. The assembly meetings that the mayor attends, the mayor's reports, the text of questions and answers and the minutes of the meetings all have to be made available to the public.
Those GLA arrangements are slightly different from those for principal local authorities, to reflect the role of the London Assembly in scrutinising mayoral decisions. However, they achieve the same objective of making information about key decisions available to the public. The amendment is therefore unnecessary. There is no need to extend the power to make regulations about public access to local authority meetings and documents to cover the London mayor, because the Greater London Assembly-specific arrangements on public access are already in place. Having heard the noble Baroness's description of how the arrangements work, I think that they are probably one of the most transparent instruments of democracy in this country. It seems to me that there is some very good practice there, not least because of the added layer of the important scrutiny role exercised by the assembly itself.
I fully recognise that it is terribly important to have access to the maximum amount of information. That is why we set out the powers in the way in which we did. Neither I nor my officials are aware that the current arrangements have created any particular difficulties. For those reasons, as well as those I set out earlier, I hope the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Russell has not been able to come up with a bit of verse to reflect the noise of, "Let us find a way of explaining what we did four or five years ago even if it was not actually the reason for it". As I said, the mayor is not actually obliged to attend meetings; I think that he has to attend six per year. Consequently, the mayor can avoid coming before the assembly. There are certainly powers for the assembly to require the mayor, the staff and certain office holders from the functional bodies and so on to appear before it, but that is all sledgehammer stuff. That is all the formal stuff that requires two weeks' notice and all the rest of it. I do not see a significant difference between the GLA and a local authority in that regard, in that in each there is an executive arm and a scrutiny arm.
Clearly I cannot pursue the issue today. I suspect that it will be more difficult to resolve than the previous one. However, if we are into horse trading, the Minister will understand where my horse is. It is an important issue and I shall read carefully what the Minister had to say. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 221CC not moved.]
Clause 117 [Local polls]:
Baroness Hamweemoved Amendment No. 221D:
Page 70, line 47, at end insert—
"( ) The local authority shall have regard to guidance which shall be issued by the appropriate person about making local polls accessible to disabled people."
The noble Baroness said: This amendment deals with a very different matter. Although I have been asked to raise the issue by the RNIB, I am sure that the institute also speaks for other organisations dealing with disabled people. The amendment requires local authorities to have regard to guidance about making local polls accessible to disabled people. I should perhaps share with the Committee the fact that I disagreed with the RNI B's original version of the amendment, which made it a condition of local polls that the guidance should "have regard to". I felt that that was going a bit far. As the issue of access is hugely important—as, elsewhere in the Bill, is the freedom for local authorities to conduct their own business—I removed the conditionality in the provision.
As I said, it is hugely important that everyone is facilitated in exercising their democratic voice. The point still applies even though Clause 117 deals with local polls rather than elections. We are talking, for example, about accessible formats for voting papers, how to meet the needs of visually impaired people when new voting methods are used, and whether Braille templates are made available for postal voting. As noble Lords will appreciate, visually impaired people may have particular concerns about confidentiality with regard to Internet voting and other new forms of voting.
Noble Lords recently debated the issue of access, in an amendment which I again tabled at the request of the RNIB, during the passage of the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill. I was assured by the Minister, who at that time was the noble Lord, Lord Evans of Temple Guiting, that the Electoral Commission,
"intends to ensure that information provision is available to blind, partially sighted and disabled voters"—[Official Report, 24/3/03; col. 528]—
for the purposes of regional referendums. I hope that the Minister can give me a similar assurance today about understanding the importance of the issue and how progress might be made. I beg to move.
Baroness Could of Potternewton: I intervene only briefly although I feel very strongly about the issue. I am very sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, decided not to accept the original version of the amendment. I think that making access available should be an obligation on local authorities, just as it is when new buildings are built. The same should apply to polling stations. "Have regard to" means that one can ignore the provision if one so wishes and I feel that that is not strong enough. Nevertheless, this provision is better than nothing.

GC 71
I appreciate that the noble Baroness dealt mainly with visually impaired people. In discussing such issues, however, I think that we have to take into account every form of disability, including those who are in wheelchairs, the physically lame and so on. One has to think about issues such as steps. However, there are also more hidden disabilities in terms of communication problems. I hope that the information will he simply put so that those who have communication problems and might have difficulty in understanding do not have to go to someone else to find out what they are meant to do. They should feel sufficiently competent to be able to vote privately and on their own, whether it be by postal vote or in a polling station.
I therefore support the amendment. However, I regret that the noble Baroness did not accept the initial wording.
4.15 p.m.
Earl Russell: I think that the conflict between my noble friend Lady Hamwee and the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, is a conflict between right and right. The noble Baroness is quite right about the limited significance of the words "have regard to". I recall that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, once remarked in the Chamber that they meant almost exactly nothing. On the other hand, we do have to start from where we are. Our ancestors, I regret to say, showed a very limited respect for the rights of disabled people in a great many remote places and some not remote, including some very close to me. The only suitable polling place is a church. Church stairs are not designed for the passage of a wheelchair. In fact, our ancestors often took a remarkably painfully unsympathetic attitude to disability. I have seen letters written to mothers of disabled children referring to it as God's punishment upon them for their sins. It was a painful doctrine. However, one cannot undo the past now.
What the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, says is entirely valid as applied to new buildings. But I think that the programme of setting out to rebuild every church in the country, here, now and at once—
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Earl. However, it is possible not to use churches. It is possible to use buildings that are accessible. I do not believe that it is beyond the wit of a local authority to find buildings that are accessible.
Earl Russell: In a great many places that is true. In a great many more places than it is practised that is true. However, I have lived in places where there was no other public building for 10 miles around. In those places it is, I think, a little more difficult. So I think that one has to have some let-out in the wording of the amendment. However, in return for that let-out, I think that we need a concessionary spirit from the Minister—slightly more than we have been hearing in other amendments hitherto.
I recall being on polling station duty for my honourable friend Mr Hughes in Southwark and Bermondsey and, over and over again, having to lift
GC 72
people out of their wheelchairs and carry them into the polling station. It should not happen and, in Southwark and Bermondsey, I believe that it need not happen. So in return for the mildly worded amendment, I hope that the Minister will help us make some progress. If he does not, he might get the next amendment worded as the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, suggests.
Baroness Maddock: I wish to raise a slightly different issue. This section of the Bill, as I understand it, does not refer to parish councils. However, parish councils are able to have parish polls. Given that there has been some reform here, I merely wanted to ask the Minister whether there are any plans to change the way in which parish polls operate.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I have a horrible feeling that, with some regret, I am going to disappoint the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I want to explain as carefully as I can why that is.
The amendment proposed by the noble Baronesses, Lady Hamwee and Lady Maddock, would amend Clause 117 by adding a further provision to ensure that local authorities have regard to guidance about making local polls accessible to disabled people. The clause creates an express provision for councils to hold advisory polls, to help them provide good community leadership and engage with their local communities. It gives councils broad flexibility in who is polled and how the poll is conducted.
Local authorities already undertake a wide range of initiatives designed to learn about the public's views on their work. We know that they attach great importance to involving people with disabilities fully in this process. We believe that good practice in this area is best served by allowing councils the freedom to innovate. We expect local authorities to provide access to facilities to enable any hard-to-reach group to participate in any such polls. However, we do not think that requiring them to have regard to guidance in this way is either necessary or desirable. We cannot see how that would add anything.
Good practice exists and is being disseminated. We do not believe that the imposition of a further layer of guidance will add anything extra. Most local authorities are now much more sensitive to this range of issues and to the need to make polls, including local polls, much more accessible to hard-to-reach groups. There may well have been problems historically, and we appreciate the spirit in which the amendment has been moved.
Baroness Gould of Potternewton: I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend. As I said, however, I feel very strongly about the issue. If the Electoral Commission came out with guidance, as I am sure it will, we would surely then expect local authorities to follow that guidance. My noble friend suggests that such further guidance is not necessary, but I suggest that it is.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I entirely support the noble Baroness's point and would find it difficult to

GC 73
argue against it. In any event we think that it might be possible to address part of the problem by applying the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act to this area. It would probably be helpful if we offered to consider how we might be able to do that. Rather than bringing in yet another piece of guidance, that is probably a more positive way forward, when there is already a wide variety of good practice in place. With that sympathetic tone and approach, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel happy to withdraw her amendment.
Earl Russell: The Minister is, I think, right that a number of local authorities are more sympathetic than they have to be. However, as my noble friend Lady Hamwee said on another amendment, the problem for a local authority is usually not sympathy but money. If the Government were prepared to put a sum of money at the disposal of a programme of conversion, that might make a good many of the difficulties disappear.
We have here an issue of equality before the law. There can be no more important equality before the law than equality in the opportunity to vote. One thinks, for example, of the literacy test in the deep south in the United States. I again quote the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale. He quoted one black man who turned up to take the literacy test and was asked the meaning of the word hermeneutics. He said, "It means there is one black man isn't going to get the vote today". This reply means, I am afraid, more than one disabled person is not going to get the opportunity to vote today.
May I ask the Minister, before we come to the next stage of the Bill, to take the advice of his noble and learned friend the Attorney-General about any possible human rights implications behind this issue? The sooner governments are warned of such implications, the sooner they can take actions to avoid them.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Earl, as ever, dispenses very worthwhile advice. Obviously it is an important point. Undoubtedly the Electoral Commission is well versed in taking such advice. I have no reason to be defensive on the issue. This Government have done more than any previous government to make polling accessible in many different varieties and many different forms. I think that we have an extremely good track record on this.
We would like to consider the points made in our discussions today and see whether guidance really is required. I am not absolutely confident that it is. However, I think that we should ensure that some attention is paid to the working of the Disability Discrimination Act. We will have a look and see what else we think may be necessary. We appreciate the importance of the issue.
Baroness Hamwee: Obviously I welcome that proposal. The noble Lord said that guidance was not necessary or desirable. I would respond to that by saying, "By definition it is; otherwise I would not have
GC 74
been asked to propose the amendment". I would also hope that officials will talk to the Electoral Commission to see what it has in mind as regards local polls and whether it feels that any issues surrounding local polls need to be specifically addressed. The issue of accessible buildings, for example, has been touched on. In my own experience, prefabricated buildings—caravans—are often difficult to access, more so than a conventional building.
I go back to where I started, which was whether or not accessibility should be a condition of having a local poll or whether, as was proposed, the condition should have regard to guidance. I also had in mind that it would be awkward if the poll were invalidated because regard had not been had to the guidance, which could leave people in an awful tangle. The noble Baroness, Lady Gould, probably has far more practical experience about these issues than the rest of the Committee put together. I am particularly grateful for her support. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 117 agreed to.
Clauses 118 and 119 agreed to.
Lord Northbournemoved Amendment No. 221E:
After Clause 119, insert the following new clause—
"EMPLOYMENT RIGHTS OF LOCAL AUTHORITY EMPLOYEES
(1) No employee whose employer is a local authority or local authority company shall be required to work on both a Saturday and the immediately following Sunday if that person has the care and control of a school-age child.
(2) On whichever day the employee is not required to work under subsection (1), he shall not be required to work at any time during that day.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (1), any adult with whom a school-age child customarily lives as part of his or her family has the care and control of that school-age child and where more than one adult qualifies under this test each of them has the care and control.
(4) In this section—
"employee" and "employer"—

(a) in relation to England and Wales, and Scotland, have the same meaning as in the Employment Rights Act 1996 (c. 18), and

(b) in relation to Northern Ireland have the same meaning as in the Employment Rights (Northern Ireland) Order 1996;

"local authority" means a local authority in any part of the United Kingdom, including the Common Council of the City of London but excluding a parish or community council;

"local authority company" means a company through which is exercised a power conferred under section 95;

"school-age child" means a person who has attained the age of five but has not attained the age of eighteen."

The noble Lord said: In the past 50 years, it is a truism to say that there have been enormous changes in our society. There have been winners and there have been losers. Among the losers have been those parents who today have to struggle to reconcile the need to earn a living with the responsibilities of bringing up a family. Their children too are suffers. Much recent research shows the great importance to children of having time with their parents.
It is not in the nation's best interests to deprive its children of the opportunity to spend time with their parents; not just an hour in the evening when parents get back tired from work, but at least, if at all possible, one whole day a week when the child is not in school.
Government departments in Whitehall are beginning to take very seriously their responsibilities for family-friendly employment practices. I hope the officials have had that experience; I certainly know of other officials in government departments who have. I believe that many local authorities are now taking their responsibilities seriously in this matter.
The purpose of the amendment is simply to jog the elbow of those who are dragging their feet. I beg to move.
Baroness Hanham: I support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, which indeed was also moved in the other place. It was received with acerbity by the Minister. I think that was rather unfortunate. There are indeed now family-friendly policies and far more attention is being paid to this whole means of keeping parents and children together, particularly during their leisure time and in ensuring that there is an opportunity for them both to be together when they need to be.
I think it is probably true to say now that there are many organisations which will automatically take account of the amendment's aims, but there are others that will not. If this issue needs to start somewhere, perhaps it should start with local government with all its aids for families, for people with children and for child-friendly policies. So, I have a great deal of sympathy for the sentiments expressed by my noble friend.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I hope that the Committee have sympathy with the thrust of the amendment. Those of us who have been Members of the House for some time will remember one of my famous victories in 1986 when the Shops Bill was before the House and we were successful in defeating it—the only defeat for the Conservative government—at Second Reading. Such events have a spin off effect, and I am an unreconstructed reactionary as regards Sunday trading and the laying-down of the law in relation to it.
I shall not fight old battles—it is one that I and those who supported me eventually lost and we shall have to live with the consequences—but one of the consequences has been a relaxation of the laws on retailing hours, which has been welcomed by many people. But, as the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, said, there have been innocent victims of the change.
As the previous speaker said, good employment practice should recognise that where a person has a responsibility for children, and where that person's employment obligations include working on both Saturdays and Sundays, one would hope that there would be a recognition of the problem and a flexible solution to it, especially in local government.
GC 76
As the noble Baroness said, the amendment may not be necessary because, in general, there is good practice. But, as we have seen from the Sunday trading nexus, there have been modifications to the six-hour trading practice. We never dreamt that shops would open on Christmas Day, so why legislate for it? The fact that we have not legislated for it means that shops now open on Christmas Day. The same applies to local government employment practices.
The Keep Sunday Special Campaign—which will not be unknown to those who live in or around Cambridge because it operates from 3 Hooper Street—has sent me a list.
[The Sitting was suspended for a Division in the House from 4.32 to 4.42 p.m.]
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I was making the case for local authorities to show flexibility and generosity to employees who have responsibilities for children under the age of 16 and who during the course of their employment may be obliged to work on both a Saturday and a Sunday. Many Members of the Committee and of the House who are mothers and fathers will appreciate that up until children reach the age of 16 there is a special quality of life that one needs to experience and enjoy—not only for the benefit of the parent but for the memories of the child. It is important that, if at all possible, there should be a mechanism under which a parent who is obliged to work on both a Saturday and a Sunday can turn to the law and say, "I am prepared to work on one day but not on both".
As the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, said, it is likely that there will not be very many employees in that situation. However, even if only one employee is being oppressed in this way, he or she should be able to seek the protection of the law. I hope that the Minister will give the amendment fair wind.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: I support the amendment. It is an unusual day when the noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, and I support the same side of an argument. I take enormous pleasure in doing so because I agree with everything the noble Lord said.
The amendment is eminently reasonable because it gives the parents of young children the right not to work. It does not state that they do not have to work at all. As the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, said, in recent times there has been a great deal of activity in government departments to promote family-friendly policies. However, Ministers have also stated recently that it is a good thing for mothers to go out to work and that their children do not suffer as a result. That is a debatable point. However, if parents make a genuine choice to go out to work—or go out to work because of necessity, which sadly is so often the case—it is not a very tall order to ask that provision be made to give them a right in law not to be required to work, in the way set out in the amendment.

GC 77
Local government is an enormous employer throughout the country. It is a very good place to start and to set an example. For that reason I support the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: Perhaps I may ask one or two questions. What consideration has the noble Lord given to the situation of "Saturday fathers"—that is, parents who do not have the care and control of the child but have access only on a relatively infrequent basis, which very often is a Saturday? What thought has been given to the situation where an employee's day of religious observance is a Friday rather than a Saturday or Sunday?
A point has been made to me that many staff want the freedom to determine their own work schedules and welcome the possibility of fitting them around the availability of childcare, which may be greater at weekends. But, as I read it, the amendment is permissive and gives an employee the opportunity to say "no" rather than anything firmer.
My last question concerns what remedies will be available and whether the employment tribunals will have jurisdiction over them. I am not sure what follows on from a provision such as this.
Lord Northbourne: As to the last question of the noble Baroness, I am not sure. The important thing is the message we are sending. Certainly the point she raises needs further consideration.
The noble Baroness also raised an extremely important point in regard to "Saturday fathers". We do not want to make this matter too complicated initially; we merely wish to raise the issue. At a later stage in the Bill, after discussions with the Government, it may be appropriate—if they are prepared to be sympathetic—to refine the amendment.
As to the question of Friday observance, the point of opting for Saturday and Sunday is not that they are days of religious observance, but that they are the only days of the week when children are not in school.
Earl Russell: It would be churlish of me not to add to the general unanimity and even more churlish of me to use more words in saying so.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: As has been said, the proposed new clause is similar to the one debated during the Report stage in the Commons. It seeks to ensure that no local authority employee or employee of a local authority company is required to work on both a Saturday and the immediately following Sunday if that person has the care and control of a school-age child. The proposed new clause also covers any adult with whom a school-age child customarily lives as part of his or her family and who has care and control of that child.
Within local government there will always be situations where people might need to work at weekends. In regular circumstances this would apply, for example, to residential homes where care needs to be provided on a 24-hour basis, seven days a week. In
GC 78
less regular circumstances this would apply, for example, to road gritting in adverse weather conditions or to other environmental or security emergency services.
The Government have a range of family-friendly policies, to which several noble Lords have referred. We have an extremely good track record in promoting family-friendly policies, and the amendment seeks, certainly in its intent, to add another layer to that. We want to ensure that there is a continued commitment to supporting working parents.
A whole raft of rights were launched on 6th April 2003 specifically for parents. These rights were provided through the Employment Act 2002. They include a new right for parents with children under six or disabled children under 18 to ask their employers for flexible working arrangements. The law places a duty on employers to consider such requests seriously and the Employment Act 2002 specifies the eight business grounds under which a request can be refused. These new rights aim to provide parents with more choice in when they work and how they manage their time.
We see no special local government case for making the provision sought by the amendment. Local authority workers have full general protection under existing employment law and are as fully protected as any other employee in any other sector. Moreover, local authorities are generally proactive in promoting flexible working.
Let me give some figures to illustrate that assertion. A DETR research report, Work-Life Balance—A Survey of Local Authorities, published in 2001, found that 94 per cent of authorities operate job sharing and 95 per cent flexitime; 98 per cent of authorities operate part-time working; 64 per cent of authorities provide more maternity pay than the law requires; in 91 per cent of local authorities senior managers work longer than standard hours, junior managers do so in 71 per cent of local authorities and manual workers do so in 42 per cent of local authorities; 75 per cent of authorities already operate out-of-hours successfully for at least one of their services. So the figures illustrate that flexibility and good practice is being followed.
We understand the spirit and the intent behind the amendment. Local authorities are very good at leading the way and have a good track record. I remember that when I became the leader of my local authority one of the first things we undertook to do was to provide adequate childcare facilities during the day for those who wanted to ensure that they had top-class professional childcare while they were at work. That enabled people to enter the workforce and to manage their time much better. We were very proud of that initiative. Local government in general has an extremely good track record in this regard and there are many good practice examples up and down the country.

GC 79
We appreciate the intent behind the amendment. A great deal of excellent work is being undertaken and the Government have put in place measures to foster and encourage good practice in the way the noble Lord seeks through the amendment.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: I am fascinated by the long list of good practices carried out by local authorities. I completely accept and support them, but they fail to deal with the point raised in the amendment. If, within that range of good practices, easements and encouragements you still have a local authority which obliges a parent with responsibility for a child under 16 to work on a Saturday and a Sunday, that can negate all the other good provisions.
I do not know why the Minister is reluctant to be more sympathetic to the thrust of the amendment. It is all very well to say that these issues can be managed, but I have a list from the Keep Sunday Special Campaign which indicates the areas in which there could be problems. For example, the list refers to support staff in care homes; leisure centres, parks and swimming pool staff; street cleaning teams; refuse tip operators; staff in entertainment venues; and traffic wardens.
People in all those occupations can work in a team, with rosters, days off and so on. It should not he beyond the wit of a good manager of a team of, say, 20 people, to identify those with special needs. In a team of 20 there may be only one or two. The amendment seeks to enable a parent with special needs not to have to work on a Saturday and a Sunday in the same week.
It may be that good managers are already doing this and that the problem does not exist—I cannot quote any figures about the size of the problem—but, if there are children who are failing to get the love, affection and bonding with a parent that a good relationship brings, we should ensure that it is possible for the parent to opt out of having to work on both days.
It is no big deal for anyone, especially for the Government. They are running a mile from legislating for a provision which will need to be policed and which, as a consequence, may be the subject of court cases, judgments, employment tribunals and so on—but it is worth it. It will demonstrate that making things work effectively is not the only criteria of the Government because, under the amendment, due regard will be paid to the bonding between parent and child at a very special time.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I thought I had made plain that the Employment Act 2002 goes some way towards achieving what the noble Lord requires. I am a parent with three young children and I fully recognise the importance of the point being made. I wish sometimes that our working hours were rather more family friendly and that I could see my children in the evenings, which I do not do on at least three occasions in the working week.
I understand the problem and the Government understand the problem—but we do not know its size or extent. All I am hearing in the debate is that there may be a problem. My noble friend Lord Graham
GC 80
highlighted groups of workers that may be affected, but we have received no representations that the situation is as described.
Under the new legislation, the Government have already placed a duty on employers to consider requests for flexible working arrangements and. as I said, those requests cannot unreasonably be refused, although there are business grounds on which they may be. We have gone a long way towards where my noble friend is heading. We are not aware of any difficulties as yet, although I accept that we are required to monitor and evaluate the success and effectiveness of the legislation.
Lord Northbourne: The noble Lord, Lord Graham, has referred admirably to many of the issues I was going to raise and I shall not repeat them. I declare an interest as a member of the advisory body, the Caldecott Community. I also carry out Section 33 visits for the Caldecott Community.
It does not make sense to say that work schedules cannot be arranged in such a way to enable people not to have to work on either a Saturday or a Sunday, the two days when children are not at school. The Minister must accept that even in his dreadful job he does not have to work on Saturdays and Sundays, at least not on a mandatory basis.
I shall not waste the Committee's time. Almost certainly I shall bring the matter back at a later stage of the Bill and press it further. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5 p.m.
Clause 120 [Fire brigade establishment schemes: removal of Secretary of State's functions]:
On Question, Whether Clause 120 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Hanham: We want to probe the detail of Clause 120, which removes the requirement in Section 19(4) of the 1947 Act for fire authorities to seek the Secretary of State's approval before making any reduction, no matter how minor, in the number of fire-fighting posts or fire appliances or before the closure or relocation of fire stations.
According to the Minister in the other place, who introduced it as a new clause, the benefit would he that the clause would ensure that there is devolution of responsibility to individual local authorities to work within a national framework set by guidance. The point, he explained, is to let decisions be taken at local level, responding to the needs of a particular locality as decided on by democratically accountable fire authorities, with the advice of fire chiefs and with local consultation.
In general, we welcome any provisions that encourage the modernisation of the fire service, particularly the introduction of risk-based organisation, which can increase the number of lives saved. Bain directed many of his comments at that. However, we have some queries and concerns about

GC 81
that approach. First, as I understand it, the guidance has not been issued. If it has, will the Minister be kind enough to tell me, so that I can find it? If it has not, can he say when it will be? In another place, the Minister, Nick Raynsford, said that it would be made public by Report—the Report stage in another place, I guess—but, as yet, there has been no sign of it.
Will local authorities be obliged to follow the guidance, or is it just guidance? Consequently, how prescriptive will it be? What happens if local authorities do not follow it? As we do not have the draft, the position is not clear. In the other place, the Minister also said that the guidance,
"makes clear the Secretary of State's expectation that fire authorities will consult local communities and stakeholders about significant changes in fire cover"—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee A, 13/2/03; col. 573.]
What happens if the Secretary of State's expectation is not met because of inadequate or non-existent consultation? Will the guidance lay out a clear process of judicial review if fire authorities fail to consult properly? For that matter, what will be deemed to be proper consultation and who will be consulted? I hope that we will see the guidance before the Bill leaves this House. In fact, it would be helpful if we could see it before it reaches the next stage, as we could decide whether we needed to pursue the matter.
We welcome decisions taken at local level to some extent, as they allow responses to particular circumstances in each locality. We also understand that there may be a danger of variable standards throughout the country and a lack of consistency and uniformity, if it is adopted.
How does the new clause introduced in Committee relate to the Bain report? I raised that point earlier. Can the Minister elaborate on the reasons why changes to the legislation were deemed necessary in reaction to that report? What will the timescale be? How long will fire authorities have to prepare integrated management plans? Is there a likely to be a transitional period? Will any extra resources be allocated to fire authorities to carry out the consultation process and integrated management plan? The Secretary of State may wish to devolve, but he must also make sure that funding is there to provide adequate financial support for local authorities taking on the new role.
Baroness Maddock: As I understand it, the new clause introduced in another place is in line with Bain. We supported that in another place and in our recent debate on the Fire Services Bill.
I share many of the concerns just raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham. There was considerable debate on this in another place. In fact, it went on for a long time. Four times, I think, the Minister promised that guidance would be produced in time for Report stage in another place. I have the list of guidance produced so far, and I cannot find it. I assume that it has not been produced. I do not know whether that is because there have been other developments with the fire services dispute. When we debated the Fire
GC 82
Services Bill last week, questions were raised about the White Paper and legislation ensuing from that. How does that fit in?
We are not against the principle. It is up to local people, within a framework, to set up the best fire service for their area. We are not against that, but I have some concerns, particularly given the other things that are happening, that we have moved as far on as this and yet we still do not have the promised guidance. I hope that the Minister can give a satisfactory answer on that, but I suspect that we will raise it again at the next stage.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I must apologise in advance if I do not answer all the points that have been raised. I recognise the importance of the issues; the effect of seeking to remove Clause 120 from the Bill is widely understood. However, we think that this is a welcome modernising step, and I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, for her acknowledgement of that. As she said, it is our view that decisions on fire cover should be taken by democratically accountable fire authorities acting on the professional advice of local fire chiefs.
Baroness Maddock: I should hate there to be any doubt that my colleagues and I are not in favour of modernising the fire service. Indeed, we voted for the amendment in another place.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I understand that and appreciate the support we have received. There is a degree of political consensus on this point, although on occasion we may disagree about some of the means. In general, it is our intention to secure the early introduction of a new risk-based approach to fire cover that will be more responsive to local needs. We believe that that will offer a real prospect of reducing the incidence of fire outbreaks and the resultant deaths and injuries.
I turn now to the specific points. It is the recollection of officials that draft guidance was placed in the Libraries of both Houses on 4th March last. The guidance was then issued for consultation on 3rd April, and that consultation closed on 30th May. I am advised that the responses are being analysed.
Baroness Hanham: I must take issue with the Minister on this. Throughout the progress of the Bill we have asked for sight of all guidance or regulations which had been produced in draft form. We have consistently made inquiries in the Library of this House for sight of any draft guidance that the Government have made available. Consistently, we have not been given any material about the Fire Services Bill.
I do not doubt that what the Minister has said is correct, but it does not make it easy for the Opposition. Even after asking for the draft material, we are not guided towards it in any way.
Baroness Hamwee: I wish to add to the comments of the noble Baroness. When we received the large bundle of drafts now in the hands of my noble friend at the end

GC 83
of that day's proceedings, I asked officials if that bundle comprised the totality of what we were to receive. They indicated that it was. On the following day, 12th June, I wrote to the Minister, putting questions to him about the regulations. In my letter, I made the point to him that I believed that I had all the drafts—in fact I was chasing up financial regulations—but in response to my letter I was not told that I had it wrong and that the position was otherwise.
Baroness Blatch: I wish to make a point in support of my noble friend Lady Hanham. She has been incredibly kind to the Minister by saying only that she believed that if the Minister said that we had received everything available, that was correct. However, my knowledge of the staff in the Library since I have been a Member of this House is that they are absolutely assiduous. If a document had been placed in the Library in the formal sense in which we use that expression, the staff would not have said that the document did not exist or that no copy of it was available.
Although my noble friend has remarked that the noble Lord is correct, I think I would prefer to phrase it differently and say that, while that may be the noble Lord's understanding, he is well supported by a number of officials who could put us right within a few moments. I invite them to do so.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am as good as the advice I am given and I understand the position to be as I have said. However, I accept the comments made by Members of the Committee and, in fact, I am extremely concerned about it. If it is the case that the drafts are not in the Library, then obviously that is a matter of profound concern. I shall ensure that officials check on it. Furthermore, if noble Lords wish, I shall try to ensure that copies are secured so that they can look through them before we proceed to the next stage of the Bill. It is only right that, noble Lords having requested the information, it is in place and made available to them as promised.
I shall pick up on some of the other points that were raised. A question was put to me about the role of the fire authorities. It is our view that it will be for fire authorities to determine and set policies arid standards for prevention and emergency response. We think that that is the right way to proceed.
On the question of whether a failure to implement proper local consultation would be judicially reviewable, yes, we think that it would be, but such decisions would relate to individual cases and circumstances and, of course, they would be a matter for the courts and thus outside our determination. However, it is our view that a failure to consult in line with what is deemed to be proper consultation—no doubt recommendations and guidance will be made available on what such consultation might look like—would feature as a part of that consideration.
Yes, this is linked to the Bain report, but it has been included in this Bill because it is also linked to our aim of ensuring that these freedoms and flexibilities are
GC 84
exercised at the local level so that decisions affecting local circumstances are made as locally as is practicable and sensible given the nature of the service.
Turning to the question of resources, fire authorities will be expected to use the flexibility afforded by the repeal of Section 19 to deploy their existing resources more efficiently. But many authorities have raised issues about resourcing in their responses to our consultation and we shall give careful consideration to those points.
I appreciate that I may not have answered all the questions that were put to me—in particular those raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham—but I repeat my undertaking to check on the issue of the draft guidance. I shall do all that I can to ensure that all those contributing to this debate and who wish to read the import of that guidance are able to do so. When we consider the matter again on Report, those who seek to contribute at that point will be better informed.
Baroness Maddock: Perhaps the Minister cannot give me a response to a question that I put to him—namely, how is this to fit in with the White Paper on the reform of the Fire Service and how will it fit in with future legislation?
I am somewhat surprised by some of the Minister's comments given that the point that the draft guidance was not able to be considered was such a controversial point when the Bill was considered in another place. It may be that this was something which was to have been dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. If that is the case, perhaps that is why we have not been given a truly satisfactory answer.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: As ever in ministerial parlance, the White Paper will be published shortly. It will be significant and no doubt the policy will be explained within the overall context of that White Paper. After all, this is something which has been considered as a desirable development so that local fire authorities are able to make decisions for themselves based on their assessment of local fire risks and taking into account all the pressures on the Fire Service. So we see this as a positive and modernising development.
I welcome the support that has been expressed for this proposal. I repeat my undertaking that, in regard to those questions that we have not dealt with as adequately as we would have liked, and in particular on the issue of the non-arrival of the draft guidance in the Library—even though I am advised that it is available there—I shall return to these matters and ensure that all those who have expressed concerns are satisfied.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Hanham: I thank the Minister for that reply. We still do not know whether the draft guidance has been placed in the Library. However, we were sent a large bundle of paper earlier in our Committee proceedings. At that point we understood that we had been given the total available paperwork attached to the Bill. It is clear that that bundle was not complete.

GC 85
The only point I wish to make is that life is quite difficult for the Opposition. I appreciate that it is not for the Government to make our lives easier, but equally it is not for the Government to make our lives more difficult. It would have been easier if we had been in receipt of everything which had been made available.
Sight of the guidance will be extremely helpful in light of the questions that I have put to the Minister. I do not think he responded to my question asking whether this is to be statutory guidance, that is, guidance that will have to be followed, or whether it will be permissive. Perhaps the Minister will clarify that point.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: It will not be statutory guidance; it will be permissive.
Baroness Hanham: That, too, will be an interesting point which we shall certainly have to return to on Report. I say that because the matters which are now to be devolved raise issues such as the number of fire-fighter posts to be cut and the potential for closing fire stations. In light of the fire strike we have just been through, those issues will be inordinately controversial and potentially combustible. No doubt we shall have a considerable debate on it. However, I shall not press the matter any further today since there is little more that we could usefully pursue at this point.
For the moment I withdraw my opposition to the Question on whether the clause should stand part of the Bill, but it is likely that we shall return to this.
Clause 120 agreed to.
Clause 121 [Repeal of prohibition on promotion of homosexuality]:
On Question, Whether Clause 121 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Blatch: For the convenience of the Committee I shall speak to the Question whether Clause 121 shall stand part and also to Amendment No. 221F, which is not in the grouping. However, in order to address the whole issue, I shall speak to both.
As I look around the Committee I predict that we are now coming to a most controversial aspect of the Bill; that is, Clause 121, inserted by the House of Commons, to repeal Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988. In view of the accusations made against me yesterday by the Minister, which I contend were completely unfounded, I shall make it clear that on these amendments, my primary concern is appropriate sex education for school-aged children.
As I said at Second Reading, in matters of controversy Parliament has placed a number of legal constraints and safeguards on local authorities and schools. We do not allow teachers to promote a particular political party view. Section 407 of the Education Act 1996 sees to that. And local authorities are restrained from party political expenditure by Section 2 of the Local Government Act 1986. There are also elaborate statutory provisions governing the way in which religion is handled in schools.
GC 86
The reasons for these provisions regarding politics and religion is that they are sensitive and controversial subjects. Parents want schools to be sensitive to the beliefs of the home. Of course young people must study political issues, but parents do not want to see schools promoting the views of one particular party; and of course young people should learn about religious belief, but again, teachers must not manipulate children into belief.
Given the controversy surrounding homosexuality, we clearly need similar provisions governing its treatment. Homosexuality is, at the very least, a controversial subject—and I suspect that this debate will bear that out. This touches on the heart of the matter, because those who want to promote homosexuality are often those who refuse to accept that it is even controversial. They refuse to accept the validity of the opinions of those who take a different view. They regard homosexuality as a good thing and they want this view to be reflected in the classroom. Alternative views are written off as outdated, bigoted, homophobic or even hateful.
But I believe most people think that if homosexuality is to be addressed in the classroom, then it should be taught as a controversial issue. It should certainly not be promoted. The key word in Section 28 is "promotion". Is it ever acceptable for a local authority to promote homosexuality to children, whether in a classroom, a youth group or anywhere else?
Before I spoke against the repeal of Section 28 on 6th December 1999, I went to the Library to look up the word "promote". Some allege that the word is confusing. The Oxford English Dictionary gives the definition as,
"to move forward, advance or raise to a position of honour, dignity or emolument, to raise to a higher grade, to prefer".
I think that is crystal clear. If a person handles the subject of homosexuality in a classroom or a youth group in such a way as to raise it to a position of honour or preference, that is promoting homosexuality.
I have certainly seen classroom material which can be regarded as promoting homosexuality in this way. I shall come to this in a moment.
In July 2000, your Lordships voted to retain Section 28. The vote followed a passionate debate. On one side of the argument we had the Government, gay rights groups and a number of children's charities. On the other side, led by my noble friend the late Baroness Young, were many Churches, denominational groups and representatives of the major religions, along with—and most significantly—parents up and down the country who expressed their views in the many letters received on this subject. I supported Lady Young. I thought her arguments were right then and I think her arguments are still right today.
Section 28 protects children. It is children—not gay rights—that ought to be our primary concern.
Earl Russell: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness. However, I am genuinely having difficulty

GC 87
in understanding what she is saying. Is the attempt to raise homosexuality to equal respect, in her eyes, to promote it, or is it not?
Baroness Blatch: I said that if it was taught in schools, it was to be taught as a controversial subject, not as a preferred lifestyle. I think that I made that clear in linking myself and my understanding of the definition given in the dictionary. I am sorry if the noble Earl is having difficulty, but perhaps by the time I reach the end of my speech on the amendment, the noble Earl may be more enlightened.
Section 28 protects children. As I said. it is children rather than gay rights that ought to be our primary concern. Section 28 is an effective law. Before the Scottish Executive repealed Section 28 north of the Border, it was used in a legal action to stop the use of a highly pornographic leaflet in a youth group attended by people as young as 12 years of age. The youth group and those who produced the leaflet received funding from Glasgow City Council.
Section 28 has been useful in England as well. It undoubtedly restrains local councils which might otherwise fund materials or individuals to promote homosexuality. Even Peter Tatchell has complained about the "self-censorship" effect where local authorities refuse to fund certain projects for fear of breaching Section 28.
Section 28 has been effective. The vast majority of councils are not recommending flagrantly inappropriate materials for use in schools. I mentioned some of those that are in the debate held at Second Reading on 3rd April, at col. 1539, and I shall not rehearse them again at length. But perhaps I may briefly remind the Committee of some of the details. They do help to show why such protection is needed.
Brighton, East Sussex, Hampshire, Croydon and Wirral councils all recommend a teachers' pack which requires children to role-play being homosexuals and lesbians. Brighton, East Sussex and Gloucester recommend Beyond a Phase, which includes a classroom video that tells 13 year-old children that to obtain sexual satisfaction they should,
"try experimenting with other boys and girls and see who you feel most comfortable with".
Gloucestershire County Council claims that the pack is in line with government guidance, which claims to give teachers more flexibility in how they wish to educate their children about sex.
I know that most school teachers are far more sensible than the particular education officials who recommend these resources. The vast majority of teachers would believe that these materials are inappropriate. But we know that some teachers have an axe to grind because some advisory teachers clearly believe that the materials are appropriate. That is why they recommend them.
Hard-pressed teachers, especially those new to the profession who are struggling to find time to prepare for classes, will look at these nicely produced lesson plans and rely on them, trusting that if they are recommended by their local authority, then they must be acceptable. That is why we need Section 28.
GC 88
The vast majority of councils take heed of Section 28. The fact that some councils breach the section is not an argument for scrapping it, any more than the fact that some people break the speed limit is an argument for scrapping speed limits. The problem is wider than just the promotion of homosexuality. The sex education exemplified in the resources I referred to is inappropriate for a host of other reasons.
That brings me to my Amendment No. 221E. At Second Reading I quoted from Taking Sex Seriously, a copy of which I have here with me today. Indeed, I have taken photocopies of one page, an activity page, which is being passed to each Member of the Committee. The document is subtitled:
"Practical Sex Education Activities for Young People".
I should say that this document was found for me by the Library and I have no doubt whatsoever that other noble Lords would be able to access it.
The pack is clearly designed to be used with young people. There are photocopiable worksheets to be handed out. There are many detailed lesson plans. Anyone who thinks that I may be concerned about nothing should look at this document, which is advocated for use with children from the age of 11 years. All I can say is that it is a disgrace.
One lesson plan requires the teacher to initiate a discussion with pupils on the "full range" of sexual activities. The teacher is given a list of examples to read out to,
"get the group thinking along the right lines".
The list includes sadism, masochism, partner-swapping, anal intercourse, multiple partners at one time and other activities which, to be frank, I simply cannot read out. However, noble Lords will see what I am talking about. It is against the rules for me to provide the entire document, but it will be made available to noble Lords at the end of our session in Committee. However, I can promise noble Lords that it does not make for happy bedtime reading.
Given the alarming growth in sexually transmitted diseases and the other problems associated with promiscuity and early sexual experience, is a teacher-led discussion on group sex really getting children "thinking along the right lines"—or by discussing partner-swapping, or sado-masochism, or the other medically dangerous practices which I dare not read out?
No, it is not. I doubt whether I have seen a more irresponsible or reckless teaching pack in my life. Even this year, some local authorities such as Wirral, Croydon and Hampshire are still recommending this document. That is even more surprising given the fact that the publishers have printed a less extreme version of the pack called Safe and Sound.
It has been suggested by some that Taking Sex Seriously is merely a teacher training pack, but it sets out detailed activities for children, including "buying condoms for homework". So the claim that it is merely for teachers and not children is clearly wrong. But if it were only for teachers, it would mean that teachers are being trained in how to give the kind of wholly inappropriate lessons which I have described.

GC 89
The last time we debated Section 28, the Government promised tough guidance which would protect children from inappropriate material. The Government issued that guidance in July 2000. The recommendations from councils to which I have referred all date from after July 2000.
Clearly the guidance is not strong enough. As a matter of fact, some of the appalling resources are declared to be in conformity with that guidance. Having read the guidance, I think that it is sufficiently vague and contradictory that one could find in it a quotation to support practically anything under the name of sex education.
I believe that the protection of Section 28 is still needed, but so is tougher legislation which gives more power to parents so that, whether the issue is homosexuality or heterosexuality, parents have a greater say in what is taught to their children. Additional remedies should be given to parents—remedies that solve problems at a more local level, the level of the school. Parents are best placed to know what is appropriate for their children. Guidance from central government can never be as good as the close involvement of responsible parents in the education of their children.
Amendment No. 221F would help to ensure that parents had a much better idea of and say in what their children are taught. It would require the Secretary of State to produce a code of practice within six months of the Bill's enactment. That code of practice would be much more specific and practical than the rather general departmental circular. It would have to establish a mechanism for consulting parents about sex education in their children's schools; it would require full disclosure to parents of materials to be used in any education addressing sex or sexuality; it would require disclosure to parents of details of third parties who go to schools to teach about sex or sexuality; and it would place restrictions on the activities of such third parties.
Legislation specifically envisages guidance on sex education. Section 351(6) and (7) of the Education Act 1996 makes that clear. Although local authorities no longer have other duties in relation to sex education, they can still exercise functions that affect sex education. New subsection (6), proposed in my amendment, provides that local authorities must have regard to the code when exercising those functions.
The code would be a powerful weapon in parents' hands. If a school failed to consult parents about sex education, any parent could use the code as the basis for making a complaint to the school. The school would then have to explain why it refused to consult parents in accordance with the code of practice issued by the Secretary of State. Parents could also use the code to ask to see the classroom resources used in sex education.
Such a code of practice would be useful because, in extremis, if a school conducted sex education in a way that was clearly outrageous, a parent could instigate
GC 90
judicial review. In such a case, the code could be cited as evidence that the school's actions were unreasonable—the test for successful judicial review.
Consultation with parents relates specifically to sex education as defined in Section 403 of the Education Act 1996. However, the code also addresses the situation in which issues of sex or sexuality are purposely discussed under other parts of the curriculum, outside normal, formal sex education. That is necessary because at least one health authority advises schools to circumvent the statutory provisions by teaching sex education through national curriculum subjects such as English. Camden and Islington health authority has published a teaching pack called Colours of the Rainbow. The pack provides detailed lesson plans. It claims to be,
"Exploring issues of sexuality and difference",
and advises teachers:
"It is possible to include many of these issues within the national curriculum areas, which means that pupils will not be withdrawn by their parents. The requirements for the sex education curriculum resulting from the 1993 Education Act allow parents to only withdraw their children from any part of the school's agreed sex education curriculum".
That is licence for circumvention: a deliberate attempt to bypass the wishes of parents and to subvert the will of Parliament. My amendment would ensure that such techniques did not put the education in question beyond the reach of the code of practice. In fact, the code of practice would represent a stronger way to implement several parts of the Government's guidance on sex and relationship education issued in July 2000.
Some of the most inappropriate sex education has often been given by third parties who go into schools. Such people may work for a local health authority or voluntary organisation. They may often be more used to working with adults than with children. People who are not professional teachers can often make misjudgments about what is appropriate for children. Paragraphs (2)(b)(ii) and (2)(c) of my amendment deal with third parties who come into schools to help teach sex education. The code of practice would have a strong influence on local authorities. It would also give power to parents by requiring better consultation and improved disclosure. The code would encourage the sort of partnership that the Government want to forge between parents and schools.
In conclusion, many of us want Section 28 to be retained. But in addition to Section 28, new safeguards are needed to tackle inappropriate heterosexual material and that promote strong co-operation and partnership between schools and parents. I know that the Minister will not agree with me about Section 28, but he should agree with my amendment, Amendment No. 221F, because it gives effect to the good practice highlighted in the Government's circular. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Palmer: I fully support the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. As she pointed out, her amendment is all

GC 91
about the protection of children. I do not believe that a single member of the Committee would be against that principle.
In previous debates, we have heard right reverend Prelates refer to Section 28 as a stabilising benchmark. During our debate on 7th February 2000, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lichfield explained how he had spoken to teachers in his diocese about Section 28. It was through that consultation that he discovered how Section 28 was regarded. Despite the politically correct view that we normally hear from teachers' unions in support of repealing Section 28, there are clearly teachers who take the opposite view and who value the protective effect of Section 28.
If those teachers work in maintained schools, the local authority is their employer. Perhaps they feel that Section 28 prevents the local authority from placing undue pressure on them to toe the politically correct line. Perhaps they feel that it protects their freedom of conscience.
Many parents certainly place their trust in Section 28, judging by the enormous number of letters that we all receive whenever this issue raises its ugly head. Parents seem to view the issue in straightforward terms: they understand that Section 28 forbids the promotion of homosexuality by local authorities; so they support it.
Parents know that it does not forbid objective discussion of homosexuality. My dear friend the late Lady Young used to cite the circular that accompanied Section 28, which stated that expressly. That is a fundamental point of principle. Parents know that it does not prevent teachers from answering questions—nor should it—but that it prevents local authorities from using their powers to encourage a kind of brain-washing approach to homosexuality. Under that approach, young people are told that there is nothing wrong with homosexual activity and that anyone who thinks differently is homophobic—whatever that means—and should be ignored.
In Scotland, we have special reason to note the value of Section 28. I remind the Committee that in 2000, the Scottish Parliament was in the throes of repealing Section 28. A nurse instituted judicial review against Glasgow City Council, which the noble Baroness mentioned briefly. The nurse was concerned that a most grotesque and graphic little booklet about homosexuality, complete with photographs of many of the activities listed, was being used with a youth group. The group that produced the booklet was funded by Glasgow City Council. The youth group itself also benefited from council subsidy. Although the court action had to be aborted because Section 28 was deleted from Scottish law, the nurse's action succeeded in having the booklet removed from circulation, and in drawing attention to the extremes to which some people will go in the use—in my view and that of many others, abuse—of local authority money.
Shortly after the repeal, the Scottish Executive and its education quango, Learning and Teaching Scotland, produced guidance for teachers on the
GC 92
subject of health education. Included in that guidance was a list of materials recommended for use in sex education. Many of the materials on that list were simply appalling. As the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, mentioned, the worst was Taking Sex Seriously, which introduces young people to practices about which most adults have never even heard.
So bad were the materials that they made newspaper headlines in the national and local press. Eventually, a petition of about 12,000 signatures was handed to the Scottish Parliament. The petition called for the Executive to withdraw its list of recommended sex education materials. The education committee of the Scottish Parliament examined the materials and agreed that there was a problem. Eventually, the chairman of Learning and Teaching Scotland conceded that some of the materials should never be used in schools and said that it would quickly be reviewing its recommendation.
How I pray that, once again, England can learn from Scottish mistakes. That all goes to show what happens when the restraining effect of Section 28 is lifted. It demonstrates that there are people in positions of influence in education and elsewhere who are willing to recommend the most appalling sex education materials for the use of young people in this country.
I remind the Committee that in a privately funded poll, more than 1 million Scottish voters asked for Section 28 to be retained. Section 28 provides a safeguard, a protective influence. It should not be repealed; it must be retained. I fully support the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch.
Earl Russell: In any civilised country, the prime responsibility of government must be to ensure that people live in peace with each other. Before developing that message further, I should like to offer apologies on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Gould, who must leave us because she is to deliver a lecture. We will miss her contribution and wish her well with the lecture.
Keeping the peace is something that must at all times be the responsibility of government. Indeed, it is the reason why we have government. If we are to attempt to keep the peace in schools, we must demand a certain minimum degree of respect for every child in that school who is prepared to show such respect to the other children.
I think here of the experience of my children when they were at school in the United States. Because language in current use in the playground has a playground quality in all countries and towns, they had to be taught this principle: to use language with a degree of respect. For example, words such as "nigger" were words liable to provoke a breach of the peace. They had never heard the word before; they were surprised to discover that it had such innuendoes; but, when they did, they were ready to accept that.
That is a perfectly reasonable model for the discussion of homosexuality in school. I have no objection to the proposition of the noble Baroness,

GC 93
Lady Blatch, that it is controversial. Many things are controversial. But between controversies, we can aim at a certain basic, equal respect.
Here, I come to the ambiguity in the word "promote". I beg the pardon of the noble Baroness, but that bewilders me; it has from the very beginning of our discussions on this subject and does so no less after her reading from the entry in the Oxford English Dictionary. There are two senses in that entry, which I regard as distinct. One is, in effect, teaching an equality of respect. Frankly, I see nothing wrong in that. If the noble Baroness does, I should be interested to know why. The other is teaching that it is a superior form of lifestyle.
Anyone who attempts to teach average teenagers that they ought not to take an interest in the opposite sex shows a degree of Utopianism that puts Sir Thomas More in the shade. That is about as complete a waste of time as one could imagine. So in one sense of the word "promote", such activity is useless; in the other, it is trivial.
Perhaps I may turn to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, in the context of his Amendment, No. 222.
Baroness Blatch: That is not being discussed at present.
5.45 p.m.
Earl Russell: I know; I do not intend to discuss the amendment, merely the word "promotion". That appears in the side note to the amendment. Of all people, the noble and learned Lord is a person to whom I listen with the greatest respect on the meaning of words placed in legislation. His amendment uses the word "encourage"; the side note uses the word "promotion". Is the noble and learned Lord responsible for the side note as well as the amendment? If so, what meaning does he attach to the word "promotion"? That could influence me greatly.
As the noble Baroness has constantly said, we are concerned with children. But some children may be of homosexual inclination. Being a child of any minority inclination or description in any school playground is a dangerous occupation. We have had some tragic reminders of that during the past two weeks. So anything that does not encourage equal respect for all the children in the playground is capable of being dangerous.
If the noble Baroness had included in the amendment an attempt to prohibit in the playground or teaching the use of language that describes homosexuality as an abomination equally with what she is attempting to prohibit, that would have made a great deal of sense to me. That would have demonstrated the equality of respect that can be combined with the keeping of the peace. I have listened to her for quite a long time. I have not heard a single word from her that suggests that any such use of language by a teacher in class or in the playground
GC 94
should be prohibited. So I wonder whether she is conceding the equality necessary to keep the peace in the playground.
The original Section 28 also refers to a "pretended family lifestyle"—I think I cite the words correctly. I remember the story of the single parent Member of Parliament who listened with her daughter to the broadcast of Michael Portillo's conference speech at a fringe meeting in 1993 which attacked single parents. The daughter turned to her mother and said, "But, Mum, we are a family, aren't we?". What should that MP have replied to her daughter? In my view, she should have taken her definition of a family from St Augustine. It is a definition of a state but, in my view, it fits the family equally well:
"An assemblage of reasonable beings united by a common agreement as to the objects of their love'.
That is a clear and moving definition. To me, it is capable of fitting a heterosexual or homosexual union equally; but it does not fit all of either.
The advice from my party is that we have no sympathy with Amendment No. 221F. I have no argument with that except, like Section 28 itself, in the local authority matrix, which no longer applies to the conduct of sex education at all. So we have a curious case of "Matrix Reloaded". It is an artificial production. It is also a considerable attempt to fetter discretion.
When one is engaged in teaching, or in speaking in this place, if one responds to the mood of the moment one often says things that one did not know one was going to say a minute earlier. I was an example of that when I spoke to the first amendment we debated today; I did not know that I was going to open my mouth on it when I came in. That happens equally when I am teaching. If I were to be teaching under a set of guidelines as that proposed in the amendment—I shall bow to the Division Bell.
[The Sitting was suspended for a Division in the House from 5.50 to 6.00 p.m.]
Earl Russell: I shall not detain the Committee for much longer, but I would like to draw attention to the fact that there is no proposal from the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, to extend an equivalent code of practice to other subjects. I would welcome an explanation of why not. I would not much enjoy teaching history according to this sort of prescription about the need to obtain parental approval. In particular, I would not much enjoy doing it in Northern Ireland.
In that context, I think one has to consider that the power of parents cannot, any more than the power of government, be allowed to be totally arbitrary and unchecked. If one looks at the history of teenage homelessness over recent years, one sees far too many effects of the power of straight parents over gay children. It can become a form of oppression and should not be totally unchecked.
Finally, I ask the noble Baroness the question with which I began. Does she regard teaching an equal respect for homosexuality as promoting it? By that I do not mean teaching that it is absolutely all right. I am

GC 95
asking: will she agree to competition on a level playing field? Will she agree to it having the same respect which I willingly and happily give to the Conservative Party? Does she regard that as promoting it or not? I hope we will have an answer.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld): The Question is—
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, rather helpfully said that we would take Amendment No. 221F and stand part together, and so we are, in one debate.
Baroness Blatch: Yes. It is the same subject.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: It is the same subject. I am happy to respond but I also appreciate that other Members of the Committee may want to speak.
Baroness Hanham: I have been slightly taken off my feet by this. I have listened very carefully to what my noble friend Lady Blatch has said. I have a great deal of sympathy with what she has promoted and put forward today. One of the most difficult aspects of education that anybody has to handle is sex education.
My memories of Clause 28 are that it was introduced for the very specific reason that some local authorities had decided not only to promote teaching on homosexuality but to promulgate it and put it on a higher plane than any of us would have expected. Whether or not that continues to be a problem because of Clause 28, I do not know. Whether it has been reduced by Clause 28 seems to me almost certain.
I remain most concerned about how education takes place against that background. There is a great level of tolerance these days towards the activities of adults—people who have had an opportunity to decide what they want for themselves and know what is right for themselves. Nobody is interfering in that in any way.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked for a level playing field and, as I understand it, my noble friend's amendment would ensure precisely that. It is a level playing field for the sort of sex education that any parent—any good parent—would want their children to be taught.
Some of the material that my noble friend has mentioned today—the only material that we were allowed to see fleetingly—would have been found quite shocking by a lot of adults. It is the sort of material that you would expect to find on the top shelf in a bookshop, in a rather lurid magazine, not in the slates of a school. Whatever the outcome of this debate, it must ensure that, to some degree, parents have more than a passing interest in what their children are taught in this respect.
I support the amendment.
Baroness Hamwee: The Minister is looking to the Front Benches. We are very happy to have let my noble friend Lord Russell speak for us. It is a ma tter of party policy to support the repeal of Section 28; it was moved by my honourable friend Edward Davey in another
GC 96
place. We support its repeal not just as a matter of party policy but, as I think will be clear on the part of many of us, with heartfelt support.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: We expected that there would be amendments to Clause 121, which repeals Section 2A of the Local Government Act 1986 as inserted by Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988. I shall refer to it as Section 28 from now on for brevity because this is how it has become known colloquially. The Opposition—the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, in particular—gave notice that she would pursue this course at later stages of the Bill.
Having said that, I am very disappointed to see these amendments on the Marshalled List. The repeal of Section 28 was, after all, supported by an overwhelming majority in another place. It is worth stressing that that support came from all sides of the House. Members from the party opposite spoke admirably about the need for repeal.
There is a clear sense that the time has come to remove this piece of divisive, unpleasant and nasty legislation from the statute book. In another place, the provision to repeal Section 28 was voted in by 19 to 2 in Committee. The amendment to remove repeal was defeated by a ratio of 5:1 at Report.
I was encouraged by the general tone of debate on this matter on Second Reading. In this House, too, most spoke in favour of repeal. Since then, some of the points raised in the debate have become the subject of cordial correspondence between my noble friend Lord Alli and the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. I am also aware that my noble friend Lord Rooker has corresponded on the matter.
I note that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, signalled their intent to oppose Clause 121 standing part of the Bill. I will address that later, setting out the broad reasons—although they are well rehearsed—for repeal.
Amendment No. 221F seeks to place a duty on local authorities to have regard to a new government code on sex education. It is, in our view, unnecessary, because we believe we already have in place a robust framework of protections.
The amendment has at its heart the role local authorities play in sex education. It is based on a misconception that local authorities still determine what is taught in schools. They do not. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, expressed her concerns at Second Reading. My noble friend Lord R ookees letter focused in particular on those matters. However, it seems to have had little effect, and I will repeat what was said earlier for the benefit of the Committee.
Local authorities no longer determine sex education. The framework for sex and relationship education in schools has been strengthened since we last debated the repeal of Section 28 in your Lordships' House during the passage of the previous Local Government Bill. This point is fundamental, and we need to be absolutely clear on it. The Learning and Skills Act 2000 amended the Education Act 1996 to remove local authorities' principal responsibilities.

GC 97
What is taught is now the responsibility of head teachers and governors. Repeal of Section 28 will not change this in any way, shape or form.
LEAs of course recommend materials to schools to facilitate sex education. The noble Baroness remarked on that and produced some evidence to that effect. However, LEAs are already under the duty through Section 351(6) of the Education Act 1996, as amended, to have regard to the Government's sex and relationship education—SRE—guidance in any input they have. The responsibility for determining whether any such materials are used and how they are used is entirely for teachers and governors, not local authorities. It is important that we all understand this basic position before I move to some of the more detailed points.
The amendment covers other important issues to which we should turn. First, the matter of consulting parents on the nature of sex education and the material used to facilitate this learning. This amendment seeks to introduce new mechanisms for consulting parents on the nature of sex education, schools' written statements and on the material used to facilitate learning. This leads me to wonder whether the noble Baroness has listened to any of the previous debates on this issue during the course of the Bill.
The amendments in 2000 mean that head teachers and governors are under a statutory duty to have regard to the SRE guidance. This has been in place for some time and has been widely praised, not least by Members of the party opposite in another place. The SRE guidance specifically addresses parental involvement.
I have referred to Conservative Members in another place supporting the guidance. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown said of the guidance:
"It is written extremely well and sets out the subject in great detail in a reasonable and balanced way".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee A, 13/2/03; col. 554.]
I thought that was a pretty good endorsement from a Member of the Opposition for that important publication.
The guidance says it is essential that schools work in partnership with parents who should be regularly consulted on sex education in schools, particularly when the contents are being reviewed, and that parents' wishes should be reflected in schools' policies. Schools should discuss and take on board any concerns raised by parents with regard to materials. These arrangements are between schools and parents. Section 28 has no relevance and no bearing on it.
If it comes to personal endorsement, I have received the letter from my local secondary high school where my two elder children go, inviting me to comment or inviting us to consider whether we think the sex education is appropriate. Where parents are unhappy with sex education in schools, they can withdraw their children from the elements not covered by the national curriculum. However, the fact is that less than 1 per
GC 98
cent have chosen to do so. We see that as an overwhelming endorsement of the robust framework that is now in place.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Will he accept that that is very difficult if, without notice, the drama teacher uses drama lessons for sex education? Will he also accept that it is difficult if the history teachers uses history for peddling sex education? We know this happens, and this makes it nearly impossible. I nearly read out from "Colours of the Rainbow" where they advocated hiding sex education in other subjects in the national curriculum because that was a way of making it difficult, if not impossible. for parents to withdraw their children from sex education.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Obviously, it is important, and the guidance makes it clear that teachers should be able to deal openly and honestly with issues relating to sex and sexual orientation. But they must have regard to the guidance, whether they be drama teachers, history teachers or whatever. The level of complaints about this is minuscule.
Earl Russell: If the Minister will forgive me, will he accept it is very difficult to teach either history or drama without reference to sex? Both of them have a history.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I have never been a history teacher; I am not sure that my history master at school talked a great deal about sex in our lessons, but it was not something that could be ignored. However, the noble Earl, who is a very fine lecturer and academic. knows this much better than I, and I accept entirely what he says.
The DfES has had no complaints in the past 12 months about the way in which the guidance has worked. At Second Reading, the noble Baroness made several references to sex education in Brighton and Hove schools. That is something about which I know a fair bit, given that I have three children there. I contacted the council this very day and asked whether it had received any complaints following the well reported speech made by the noble Baroness at Second Reading. It has had no complaints since, and it had had no recorded complaints for the previous three years. If what the noble Baroness said about the quality and type of material was widespread across the school and teachers were using it as extensively as seems to have been suggested in some of the noble Baroness's comments, I would have expected something. There was nothing there.
In any event, the repeal of Section 28 will have no effect on the framework. Parents are already sufficiently involved in the process of determining sex education. I am not sure what mechanism the noble Baroness has in mind, but I remind those opposite that suggestions made in another place about balloting were firmly criticised for opening the floodgates to divisive campaigns. We should have no truck with that approach.

GC 99
The amendment would also make available to parents details of those other than teachers involved in the provision of sex education in schools. We believe that aspect is also unnecessary. The current framework already extends, as I said, to such individuals. The suggestion that anyone can just wander into a school and provide sex education to schoolchildren is simply absurd.
The SRE guidance recognises that there are other individuals, such as health professionals, social workers, youth workers and peer educators, who can play a valuable role in sex education. The guidance is clear on the framework within which they must operate and that parents should be informed of the role that they play. Paragraph 6(2) says that people entering school to help deliver sex and relationship education must be made aware of the school's policy and programme and should abide by it. Parents should also be aware of the involvement of the wider community.
The guidance also says that it would be inappropriate for any professional to promote a particular sexuality. As I said. teachers and governors are ultimately responsible for determining the content of sex education in schools. That includes sex education provided by those other than teachers.
On the matter of the framework that applies to those providing sex education to children, the noble Baroness raised concerns at Second Reading about the possible effect of the amendments to the Sexual Offences Bill relating to exemption from prosecution for child sex offences. Noble Lords will be aware that the amendments were successfully introduced at Third Reading of the Sexual Offences Bill. For the avoidance of doubt, the amendments would not prevent those providing sex education from facing prosecution if they caused or encouraged the activity constituting an offence or the child's participation in it. If those providing sex education distribute sexual material to a particular child or children for their own sexual gratification incite or cause the commission of a child sex offence, they would not be protected from prosecution by the exemption.
Finally, this amendment also seeks to make such a code the basis of any legal challenge. However, the framework that I described already exists in statute. Sections 403, 404 and 405 of the Education Act 1996, as amended in 2000, set out that framework. There are several tiers in place that allow external scrutiny, to ensure that school sex education policies are appropriate. Parents must be consulted; Ofsted has a statutory responsibility to inspect personal and social and health education; and parents can complain directly to the Secretary of State for Education and Skills. Ultimately, parents are already able to seek judicial review.
As I said earlier, fewer than 1 per cent of parents have withdrawn their children from sex education since the provisions of the Learning and Skills Act 2000 came into effect. As I also said earlier, the DfES has received no complaints in the past 12 months on
GC 100
the framework. That is a clear endorsement of the framework that we have in place. It is successful, and parents are broadly content with it.
The noble Baroness's amendment is unnecessary, and I hope that she withdraws it. As to the wider issues relating to Section 28, one of the strong points that the noble Baroness made was that it had already been effective in some way. Well, if that is the case, I very much regret it. My own view is that it has not been the case because, actually, I do not think that it did anything to tackle the imagined issue that the noble Baroness had in mind that it served so admirably to do. Certainly, when I was leader of my council in the late 1980s, the coming of Section 28 worried us a great deal because we made grants available to gay and lesbian organisations that provided a range of highly beneficial advice.
We decided to ignore the effect of Section 28. It had no bearing on our policies. In fact, we even passed a motion and resolution opposing it. The wrath of the government did not fall upon our head, and I am glad that that was the case, because we were right. It was a nasty, divisive piece of legislation that had no practical effect other, I think, than to stir up homophobia and make people who, perhaps, already felt vulnerable in their community to feel even more so.
I hope that we finally knock this on the head this time round. I do not believe that the amendment is at all necessary. I hope that the House takes a different view from that which it has expressed in previous years on the issue.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving a full answer, although he seemed surprised that we addressed the two amendments together. Given that they were on the same subject, it seemed appropriate and for the convenience of the Committee to do so.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, for making that point. I am grateful to her for bringing the two issues together.
Baroness Blatch: I thank the noble Lord. To the noble Earl, I say that the best way that I can answer the particular question is to say that it is one thing for a teacher to say, "Homosexuality is wrong" or to say, "Some say that homosexuality is wrong, and some say that it is right"—in other words, introducing the idea that, like politics or religion, it is a controversial issue. One need only read the papers from the past week to know that it is indisputably a controversial issue. It is another thing for a teacher to say that homosexuality is equal to heterosexuality. That is probably what is behind the noble Earl's question. That would be taking sides, as a teacher, and saying, in other words, "There are some who think this and some who think that, but I think that it is equal to heterosexuality". Taking sides in that way would be a form of promotion.
Earl Russell: There are valid senses in which I would say that the Conservative Party is equal to the Liberal Democrats. Has the noble Baroness any objection?
Baroness Blatch: Given the policy differences between us, I probably would have some objection.

GC 101
I shall move straight on to that issue. I am not sure about this, but I think that, on my amendment, Amendment No. 221F, the noble Earl said, with the endorsement of the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that he wanted "no truck" with it. I do not think that that was the noble Earl's language, but, whatever he said, the point was, "We want nothing of it". If they want nothing to do with a code of practice that would cover proper consultation with parents and strengthen it and give information on the manner in which sex education is taught, the materials used in sex education and the use of third parties in schools, there is a serious difference between us. It would be hugely helpful for teachers and would protect children in schools.
The noble Earl also asked, "Why not other subjects?". In their wisdom, the Government thought it necessary in law to do something about the teaching of politics. They thought it necessary in law to do something about how the subject of religion is handled in schools. It is not uncommon to link politics, religion and sex education. They are highly sensitive and controversial subjects, and it is right that teachers and schools—and governors—should be helped to see their way through what I regard as a minefield.
I would expect us, in the interests of the health of young people, positively to discourage under-age sex and certainly not to introduce children, as part of sex education, to some of the practices set out in the document Taking Sex Seriously. I was not allowed to let the Committee see the document, but I shall read the preamble to a practical exercise for children from the age of 11 upwards. I shall not read out the list of activities. I will leave that to Members of the Committee to read themselves.
The document advises teachers to explain the purpose of the exercise and to ask people to move into groups of three and give them a bundle of strips of card or paper. It then says:
"Ask them to think about all the different sexual activities two people can do together. Ask them to write each one on a separate strip of card large enough so it can be seen if put up on the wall. Tell them they can put down whatever they think of and that it is best if they do it in a specific way. E.g. rather than just 'oral sex'—
I hope Members of the Committee will forgive me here and bear in mind that this is for children of 11-plus—
"they might put 'sucking a man's penis' or licking a woman's clitoris'. (Some examples of sexual activities are given below. You may need to give a few examples to get the group thinking on the right lines".
I, as a parent, would not wish my children to be in a classroom engaging in that practical activity. I will do what I can, as long as I have breath, to give parents a shot in the arm and give them the right to do something about that kind of sex education in schools.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I do not want to prolong the debate, but will the noble Baroness accept that there are adequate procedures and processes in place for parents to object, if they feel that that sort of material was being used inappropriately in schools? We believe that there is a proper process in place, that the guidance is robust enough and that parents can use
GC 102
it if they object. Does she also accept my earlier point that parents have the right and the facility to withdraw their child from non-national curriculum-based lessons that relate to sex education? If people are genuinely offended by that sort of material, they have ample opportunity to complain and to withdraw their children from its effect.
Baroness Blatch: First, that leads me nicely on to the very point I was about to make. Secondly, I have already spoken about the difficulty that parents have in withdrawing their children from that class of sex education that is not within the national curriculum because they do not always know when it is being taught. I have given examples from a document I have quoted twice and am about to quote for the third time of how schools are officially advised and given ways of circumventing the law.
On the Minister's specific point, only as recently as 2003, Brighton and Hove Council strongly recommended what I have just read out from Taking Sex Seriously. It was also recommended by Croydon Council, Hampshire County Council and East Sussex. The proposals for children of 11-plus were strongly recommended in 2003 by Brighton and Hove Council, Croydon Council and Hampshire County Council. The Minister may think there is a robust system in place; the truth is that councils can quite officially and legitimately—these are photostats of the actual documents from those county and borough councils—recommend this kind of inappropriate sex education for their children in school, and they can get away with it.
The noble Lord should have a better idea and should be advised rather more accurately by his officials as to how some of this sex education, which I regard as wholly inappropriate—I know I would be supported by many parents. if they knew these documents existed—was being officially recommended by local authorities.
The noble Lord said that the level of complaints about sex education was minuscule. I have already given one reason why that might be—parents do not always know. It is a brave child who will go home and tell their parents the sort of things they have been hearing in school. When I spoke at the outset to the amendment, I made it clear again and again that the majority of schools, governors and teachers are not breaching Section 28, but that even if a minority is, we should do something about it.
The argument that it is only a minuscule number of parents is not a reason for abandoning the need to protect children, even a minority of children, from inappropriate sex education. The Minister and noble Lords have opposed me and my late friend Lady Young for years. If the issue had not been inserted into the Bill, I should not be talking about it. Those noble Lords always argued that Section 28 was an irritant. It clearly is, because everyone is so rattled about it. Clearly, it has had some effect. For that, I am grateful.
The noble Lord rather ridiculed the attempt by my colleagues in another place to introduce the notion of balloting. The Government have done that in the Bill.

GC 103
They have Section 117, which allows balloting with no restrictions on the kind of subjects that could be the subject of such a ballot. One can ballot parents about the quality of any kind of service in the authority. The noble Lord clearly does not know his He has to look it up to see what I am talking about.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Bassani of Brighton: No, I am aware of them—polls.
Baroness Blatch: Polls are a form of balloting. Local polls reflect the views of people in local communities as to what they think about public services. This, I remind the Minister, is a public service.
If Clause 28 has been effective—the Minister said—he very much regrets it. I have to say that, if the noble Lord is saying that, if Clause 28 has been successful in protecting children from sex education—
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I absolutely object to that inference from my words. I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw it now.
Baroness Blatch: If I have got it wrong, I certainly will profusely apologise to the noble Lord, but I heard him say:
"If it has been successful. I deeply regret it".
I shall check Hansard tomorrow to see whether I am wrong about that. I will do more than that—
Lord Bassam of Brighton: Let us pursue this matter.
I am conscious of the time, and I want to see the debate completed. I was not in any way suggesting that there was regret from me. My point was that I did not see that Section 28 was at all relevant to the issue of ensuring that there was adequate child protection. I would not want the inference drawn that the noble Baroness was certainly on the point of drawing. It is not accurate.
Baroness Blatch: I totally accept what the Minister has just said. I hope that, when the noble Lord hears the tape of what was said today, it will prove to have been a slip of the tongue. I heard the noble Lord say that, if it had been effective,
"I very much regret it".
I was going to say that, if that is the case, it says more about the Minister than it does about me and the intention behind my amendment.
I end where I started: my concern is the protection of children, so that they receive appropriate sex education. I shall carefully read what the Minister and other noble Lords have said. I shall do what I can to empower parents to make a judgment about sex education and its appropriateness, whether it is homosexual and/or heterosexual sex education.
What I have read in those documents, which are still being recommended by local authorities, is wholly unacceptable. I shall do all I can to fight to see that they do not survive in the education system.
Clause 121 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 221F not moved.]
Lord Brightmanmoved Amendment No. 222:
After Clause 121, insert the following new clause—
"PROMOTION OF PARTICULAR SEXUAL LIFESTYLES
(1) Subject to the general principle that the institution of marriage is to be supported, a local authority shall not encourage, or publish material intended to encourage, the adoption of any particular sexual lifestyle.
(2) This section does not prohibit the provision for young persons of sex education or counselling services on sexual behaviour and associated health risks."
The noble and learned Lord said: I am conscious of the time and I shall be quite brief. The purpose of Amendment No. 222 is to satisfy both those who support the repeal of Section 28, and those who fear that the repeal of Section 28 would encourage the adoption of a homosexual lifestyle. I emphasise that I am not taking sides in any debate about homosexual lifestyles, I am trying only to satisfy both sides during the legislative process in which we are now engaged, to lay the matter at rest in this House and to avoid the kind of conflict which we have had between the two Houses on the previous occasion. I have no other purpose in mind.
The amendment is also worded to satisfy those who fear that the repeal of Section 28 might undermine the institution of marriage. The amendment which I have tabled begins with the words:
"Subject to the general principle that the institution of marriage is to be supported".
Those words are taken verbatim from Section 1 of the Family Law Act 1996, which calls for,
"regard to the following general principles—
(a) that the institution of marriage is to be supported".
No objection can therefore properly be taken to the opening words of the amendment.
The amendment continues,
"a local authority shall not encourage, or publish material intended to encourage, the adoption of any particular sexual lifestyle"
Homosexuality is not mentioned. The amendment therefore contains nothing which can be offensive to homosexuals.
At the same time, the wording of the amendment disposes of the fear of some that the bare repeal of Section 28, without any embellishment, might be interpreted as encouraging local authorities to promote homosexuality.
I submit that there are at least five reasons why the Government might feel able to accept this amendment: first, it does not change one word of the Bill; secondly, it cannot cause offence to anyone; thirdly, it removes the misgivings of those who may be fearful of the unintended consequences of removing Section 28; fourthly, it is supportive of the institution of marriage; and, fifthly, it avoids the possibility of a conflict between the two Houses in the middle of an extremely heavy legislative programme.
I cannot expect the Government to accept this amendment at this stage. All I ask is that it may be examined with some sympathy and that the Minister may give me the privilege of meeting him between now and Report stage to discuss the implications of the amendment at greater length than I think is really appropriate at this hour today. If such a meeting could be held, I would welcome the presence of my noble friend Lord Northbourne, who has worked with me on this amendment.
I have two small points with which to end. First, I have not invited the Committee's attention to subsection (2) of the proposed new clause. It states:
"This section does not prohibit the provision for young persons of sex education or counselling services on sexual behaviour and associated health risks".
I must also deal with the point put to me by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. If I have understood it correctly—and I may not have heard it right—he was inviting attention to the difference between the heading of my amendment, "Promotion of particular sexual lifestyles", and the content which refers to encouragement. If I have that right, I can answer it in two ways. First, I had the advantage during the interval while there was a Division to seek a little advice. I am told that the heading of a section is not a part of a Bill and is not debated.
Secondly, when I table an amendment, I always leave it to the Public Bill Office to write the amendment in. I beg to move.
Lord Northbourne: I have put my name to this amendment and I should like to speak to it briefly. It is a great pleasure to listen to my noble and learned friend Lord Brightman and to the skill with which he explains exactly what he and I are trying to achieve.
Section 28 has generated a great deal of heat over the past few years—a great deal more heat than light, it has to be said. The amendment is intended as a compromise, as my noble and learned friend explained. I support it because I think that this endless debate on homosexuality is distracting our society from the really serious issue of what we believe sex is for and what part sex should play in relationships between adults if we want to have healthy and happy families and a happy and healthy society in the 21st century.
Until we have some consensus between adults on this issue, it is really almost pointless to try to discuss what we should be teaching our children. The amendment provides a formula which should be reasonably acceptable to all parties and should take the heat out of the argument. I therefore commend it to the Committee.
Earl Russell: Blessed are the peace-makers—but they take appalling risks. I congratulate the authors of the amendment on having taken those risks. I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, for his explanation of the words "promote" and "encourage", which taught me everything that I hoped to hear.
GC 106
I have two queries to put to the noble and learned Lord and I will be very heavily influenced by his answers. First, I look at subsections (1) and (2) of his proposed new clause. Does he accept, in effect, the provision of the 39 Articles that the Church shall not so expound one place of scripture that it shall be repugnant to another? Does he accept that the use of health education should not be taken to indicate a superiority of one way of life over another? It could otherwise be a very heavy postern gate through which a whole army could creep. I do not think he would wish that, any more than I do.
The other point I should like to ask him about is whether he would consider a slightly less monopolistic provision for marriage. I do not think I need in this company to say anything about my own attitude to marriage but having had—before cancer reduced their number—two sisters-in-law who chose to live as permanent partners, I cannot bring myself to subscribe to anything which says that marriage is automatically superior to any other long-term loving relationship.
I remember one occasion when my wife and I were entertained after a public lecture by a couple, both recently emerged from exceptionally unhappy first marriages. They were creeping their way towards a real commitment to each other. Over dinner, they fell into a discussion, encouraged by our mood of celebrating the silver anniversary of our engagement, and they discussed what would constitute a real commitment between them. After considering about a dozen possibilities, they decided that the moment of commitment would be when they ceased to have two separate subscriptions to their main historical journal and took out a single joint subscription.
I met that couple last week. They are still together and happier than they ever were. There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in some of our philosophies.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Earl, Lord Russell, is right to see this as a peace-making attempt. Whether it entirely achieves that, I am not sure, nor am I convinced. The amendment seeks to place a broad duty on local authorities to prevent them—with the exception of supporting the principle of marriage—promoting any particular sexuality across any of their functions. I take particular note of the noble and learned Lord's provision which would ensure that this would not obstruct local authorities in their responsibilities for sex education and sexual health.
I have already covered in detail the fact that the main responsibilities now fall on schools and that we believe we have in place an adequate framework of protections when those responsibilities are properly exercised. I should also say that the spirit of this amendment with regard to sex education closely reflects that of the SRE guidance, which in paragraph 1.21 states that,
"children should be taught about the nature of marriage and its importance for family life and for bringing up children"—
but—
"that there are strong and mutually supportive relationships outside marriage".

GC 107
Also at paragraph 1.30, it states that,
"teachers should be able to deal honestly and sensitively with sexual orientation, answer appropriate questions and offer support. There should be no direct promotion of sexual orientation".
I think that most noble Lords in the room could sign up to those two paragraphs and live happily with them. I hope we all could.
As regards the position of children and education, we feel that the amendment is unnecessary; but it is no less unnecessary in relation to other functions, and it could be harmful. The Bill builds on other measures introduced by the Government to give local authorities the powers and freedoms they need to be effective community leaders.
Local authorities know the role they are expected to fulfil. They should be acting responsibly. They should not be promoting any specific lifestyle choice, but they should be able to provide services that meet local needs and support all members of their communities. I say that with added feeling since I probably live closest to one of the largest gay communities in the UK. Kemptown is extremely well known for being that. It is part of the colourful nature of Brighton and Hove that makes it a very diverse and eclectic place.
We argue that local authorities should be able to provide those services to meet local needs. That includes the local needs of all members of our communities in an inclusive term. We think that the amendment could unnecessarily undermine their ability to do so. I would hope that for that reason—and I certainly respect the spirit in which the amendment has been moved and supported—that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: Before the Minister sits down, could he explain what there is in the amendment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Brightman, that would undermine the local authority's ability to provide services to people in its community, which he has just explained?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: This is not a brilliantly close textual analysis. The first of the two subsections states that,
"a local authority shall not encourage, or publish material intended to encourage, the adoption of any particular sexual lifestyle".
I would have thought that that would be open to various and wide interpretation by the courts. I do not know. Brighton and Hove City Council. for example, offers its support to a local Gay Pride venture that happens annually. That support takes various and different forms. I should have thought that that clause could quite possibly be used to challenge that support. I do not know. I would not want to form a judgment on it. I am not a lawyer. But I could see that that could happen. I do not think that there are many who would argue that the local authority should not have a role in enabling Gay Pride events to take place on its streets. If the amendment is put in place, I can see a potential
GC 108
problem for local authorities, such as my own, which plays host to a Gay Pride event. That is my judgment; that is my view.
Lord Brightman: I am grateful to Members of the Committee who have spoken in this short debate. Perhaps I may emphasise that my only purpose is by amending the Bill to prevent, in the course of a heavy legislative programme with not much time left, any further argument about Section 28. That is what I am striving to do. The amendment may not fit awfully well with our legislation, but it cannot possibly do any harm. It does not alter a single word of the Bill. The reference to "the institution of marriage" is taken straight from existing legislation and therefore cannot possibly be objected to. I mentioned that the Family Law Act 1996 refers to,
"regard to the following general principles".
The first is,
"that the institution of marriage is to be supported".
To repeat those words is therefore totally unnecessary; but it does no harm and may satisfy some doubters. Again, as I say, all I am trying to do is to prevent another clash in the House and endless waste of time.
The noble Earl, Lord Russell, put two questions to me. I am sure there is nothing between us on the first one. On the second one, I hope that he will accept that the amendment only repeats what is already on the statute book. I do not think I can say more except to hope that possibly I might—I do not know—be able to agree with the Government some form of wording that I could introduce that could conceivably prevent any further discussion about Section 28. In the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 222A not moved.]
Clause 122 [Orders and regulations]:
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendment No. 223:
Page 74, line 18, at end insert—
"( ) No—

(a) order under this Act which, in exercise of the power under subsection (1)(b) to make incidental or supplementary provision, amends or repeals any enactment contained in an Act, or

(b) regulations under this Act which, in exercise of that power to make incidental or supplementary provision, amend or repeal any such enactment,

shall be made by the Secretary of State unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing the order or regulations (whether containing the order, or regulations, alone or with other provisions) has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament."
The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 223 and 224 have been tabled to reflect the recommendations of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. They make certain that orders and regulation-making powers in the Bill are subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. They are entirely in line with what that committee recommended.
We have had a number of debates on the issue. I acknowledge that there is a further amendment in the group—Amendment No. 226. My only comment and observation on that is that it goes further than the recommendations of the DPRR Committee. I would hope that the noble Baroness, as I am sure she will, will not move her amendment and will acknowledge that fact. We are happy to oblige the DPRR Committee because we think it is right. We hope that the amendments will find support with the Committee.
Baroness Hanham: My amendment, Amendment No. 226, is in this group. It is intended to draw attention to the considerable power under Clause 122(1)(b) and to ensure that anything done under that power would he done under the affirmative procedure. For tonight's purposes, I do not propose to move it any further.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I beg to move the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendment No. 224:
Page 74, line 21, leave out from -instrument" to "shall" in line 22 and insert "that—

(a) contains an order or regulations under this Act, and

(b) is not subject to any requirement that a draft of the instrument be laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament,"

The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld): If Amendment No. 224 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 225 due to pre-emption.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 225 and 226 not moved.]
Clause 122, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 123 to 126 agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Baroness Blatchmoved Amendment No. 226A:
Page 101, line 41, at end insert—
"Local Government ( Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 (c. 30)
In Schedule 3 to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982 (control of sex establishments), in paragraph 2 after "sex cinema" there is inserted ", a lap dancing club"."
The noble Baroness said: This is the last amendment of this stage of the Bill and I shall be very brief. One of the problems of the Grand Committee procedure is that it is not possible to be in two places at the same time. This is an amendment that my noble friend Lady O'Cathain would have spoken to but she has to be active on the Water Bill. I seek to move Amendment No 226A on behalf of my noble friend. The amendment seeks to amend the meaning of "sex establishment" as contained in paragraph 2 of Schedule 3 to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982.
At present, a sex establishment includes a sex cinema or a sex shop. This amendment seeks to add the group of so-called lap dancing clubs to the definition,
GC 110
therefore bringing the licensing of such establishments within the provisions of Schedule 3 to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act.
The reasoning behind this amendment is straightforward. At present, the licensing of so-called lap dancing clubs is dealt with by way of application for an entertainment licence under the provisions of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982. Part I and Schedule 1 to that Act relate to the licensing of public entertainment and Part II of the Act and Schedule 3 to the Act relate to sex establishments.
The introduction of this amendment has been prompted by the recent rapid growth in so-called lap dancing clubs which are now presented as executive entertainment but are in fact no more than high-class "strip joints". The entertainment at these clubs is provided by women, who dance on stage or individually for a particular client and progressively remove their clothing. Some licensing authorities have applied special conditions to entertainment licences to the effect that only partial nudity is allowed but this particular provision is becoming increasingly rare. I understand that there are also conditions that are sometimes applied that relate to the distance to be kept between dancers and clients and also to restrict the touching of any of the dancers by the clients.
My noble friend is convinced that when the 1982 Act was passed it was not envisaged by Members of the Committee that entertainment licences would be granted for such explicitly sexual entertainment. Additionally, there have been recent media reports to the effect that a particular lap dancing club in Tottenham Court Road has been investigated by the local vice squad as there was a suspicion that it was being used as a "front" for prostitution activity.
Additionally, I understand that when members of the public wish to object to the granting of a licence for a lap dancing club they find themselves restricted to the usual planning criteria that are applied to other applications. These relate to whether or not there will be a noise disturbance to residents from the premises or an increased risk of litter or public order offences. Clearly, the issues that lead local residents to object to a lap dancing club will very seldom relate to these specific grounds. They are much more likely to centre around the considerations that can he given by a local authority when an application is made for a sex shop licence; that is, the character of the relevant locality and the use to which other premises in the vicinity are put.
Therefore, it would seem eminently sensible to bring the licensing of lap dancing clubs within the remit of Part II and Schedule 3 to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982. This simple amendment would achieve that legitimate aim. I beg to move.
7 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I find myself saying for the second time today, I think, that I simply cannot accept the amendment proposed by the noble Baroness. I think we have reached a stage with the Bill at which we

GC 111
cannot give the full and proper consideration that the proposed new clause demands. I think it probably requires further preparation.
The amendment itself is flawed because it does not contain a definition of lap dancing. Without such a definition, the amendment could lead to considerable confusion. Putting that aside, I think that it would also take some time to establish whether local government and other interested parties would welcome such a proposal. Perhaps the noble Baroness has done work on that. Perhaps she has sought the views of the Local Government Association. Perhaps the officials in that organisation have a view on whether the proposals would be helpful in the regulatory regime which local government operates in this sphere. There are also the two issues which go together of cost and regulatory impact.
For those reasons, the Government do not support the amendment. I am also afraid that we cannot agree to introduce our own amendment within the confines of the Bill. However, I accept the sincerity with which the issue has been raised. The Government's view is that more work is required on the proposal before it is in anywhere near a perfect state. There would have to be much more detailed consultation with those in the local government domain who operate in this field.
Baroness Blatch: I will leave it to my noble friend to read what the Minister had to say. I think she will be disappointed both that the case was not accepted and that the Minister has not actually said on what grounds he does not accept the case for considering lap dancing clubs as analogous to sex shops. They are analogous in the way in which they practise. As I said, neighbours of lap dancing clubs who want to complain about them are restricted to complaining on grounds which are not actually relevant to the particular grounds of complaint. Those grounds would be analogous to those applying to sex shops.
The Minister argues that accepting the proposal would be difficult because the Bill must be passed. It is a simple amendment which could be accepted. He accuses my noble friend of saying that the amendment is flawed because it has no definition—but the amendment is about redefining.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: I did not accuse; I was simply trying to aid discussion. It was not an accusatory observation. I really think that the noble Baroness should come down from the rather confrontational language that she sometimes uses in these situations.
Baroness Blatch: The Minister is unusually touchy today.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: No, I am not.
Baroness Blatch: The Minister said that the amendment was flawed because it did not contain a definition. But the amendment is redefining lap dancing clubs. That is the point of the amendment. That is the point that he missed. The intention is to redefine lap dancing clubs and put them into the same
GC 112
category as sex shops. I think that it is a perfectly simple amendment and would be extremely responsive to those who are concerned in the community. I will leave it to my noble friend to make a judgment about the response that the Minister gave. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendments Nos. 227 and 228:
Page 103. line 24, at end insert—
"( 1 A) In subsection (3), for "(9A)" there is substituted "(9AA)"."
Page 103, line 30, at end insert—
"(4) After subsection (9A) there is inserted—
"(9AA) The power of the Secretary of State to make an order under paragraph 5G of Schedule 9 shall be exercisable by statutory instrument, and no such order shall be made by him unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by, resolution of each House of Parliament.""
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 228A to 228D not moved.]
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendment No. 229:
Page 109, line 22, at end insert—
"53A In Schedule 13 (minor and consequential amendments), in paragraph 80 (amendments of section 143 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988)—

(a) sub-paragraph (1) is omitted, and

(b) in sub-paragraph (2), for "that section" there is substituted "section 143 of that Act (orders and regulations)"."

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 7 [Repeals and revocations]:
[Amendments Nos. 230 to 230A not moved.]
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendment No. 231:
Page 114, line 39, column 2, after "paragraphs" insert "80(1),"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 127 [Commencement]:
Lord Bassam of Brightonmoved Amendments Nos. 232 to 234:
Page 75, line 26, after "9( I )," insert "24(1), ( IA) and (4),"
Page 75, line 26, after "50(1)" insert ", 53A"
Page 75, line 30, at end insert—

"( ) Schedule 9 to the Local Government Finance Act 1988 (c. 41), and

( ) paragraph 80(1) of Schedule 13 to the Local Government Finance Act 1992 (c. 14),"

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 127, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 128 agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
Committee adjourned at six minutes past seven o'clock.

  Ulster-Scots Agency
  Ulster-Scots Agency
  North/South Ministerial Council
  North/South Ministerial Council
  Northern Ireland: Special Educational Needs Assessment
  Northern Ireland: Special Educational Needs Assessment
  Belfast Education and Library Board: DVD Language Policy
  Belfast Education and Library Board: DVD Language Policy
  North/South Ministerial Council Joint Secretariat: Use of Premises by Implementation Bodies
  North/South Ministerial Council Joint Secretariat: Use of Premises by Implementation Bodies
  Brixton Prison
  Brixton Prison
  Racial Discrimination: UK and EC Legislation
  Racial Discrimination: UK and EC Legislation
  Disability Benefits: Recipients Aged over 50
  Disability Benefits: Recipients Aged over 50
  Pensions Protection Fund: Costs
  Pensions Protection Fund: Costs
  Economic and Monetary Union
  Economic and Monetary Union
  Iraq: Debt
  Iraq: Debt
  Genetically Modified Maize
  Genetically Modified Maize
  Farming: Landscape Enhancement and Biodiversity Schemes
  Farming: Landscape Enhancement and Biodiversity Schemes
  Horse Passports (England) Order 2003
  Horse Passports (England) Order 2003