Sitting of 3 March 2003

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

    Armed Forces Deployment (Gull)
    1. Mr. Wayne David: What the level of preparedness is of British armed forces deployed in the Gulf region. [99846]
    2. Mr. Paul Goodman: If he will make a statement on the deployment of troops in the Gulf. [99847]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): In three previous statements I have detailed the composition and deployment of United Kingdom forces from all three services to the Gulf region, presenting a significant and credible threat of force in support of United Nations Security Council resolution 1441 and the disarmament of Iraq.
    In addition, our forces continue to enforce the no-fly zones, which has lately involved more frequent patrols and a broader range of aircraft.
    Detailed planning will continue to evolve, but we currently envisage the total deployment of around 45,000 armed forces personnel. The UK presence in theatre is rapidly building to form a highly capable force. Approaching 30,000 UK armed forces personnel are now deployed in theatre, making a significant contribution to the flexible and balanced range of coalition capabilities that would be used in the event of military action.
    Mr. David: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. He will be aware of various accusations, not least in the press, about the alleged inadequacies of the clothing, food and equipment that is being provided to our forces in the Gulf. Can he give a commitment that the necessary logistical support is being given so that any problems may be ironed out? Moreover, can he give a cast-iron commitment that our troops will be fully equipped and ready to meet any action that they have to take in the Gulf?
    Mr. Hoon: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. There have been a number of particularly ill-informed media reports, including, in one newspaper yesterday,
    564
    the complaint that our soldiers were getting three meals a day. I assure my hon. Friend and other hon. Members who may he concerned that our forces are being properly supported. The deployment and sustained supply of our forces in the Gulf is a vast undertaking. The Defence Logistics Organisation estimates that the same volume of equipment and stores has been deployed in half the time that was taken in the 1990–91 Gulf conflict. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the thousands of personnel, military as well as civilian, who have accomplished that.
    Mr. Goodman: Is there any reason why the Secretary of State cannot confirm that the command and control arrangements for British forces will be the same as they were during the Gulf war, and can he confirm reports this morning that American marines may be placed under British command?
    Mr. Hoon: The command and control arrangements will not differ significantly from those that operated in the course of the Gulf war. It is not sensible to talk at this stage about who may be commanding which different forces in the Gulf, but this is certainly a significant coalition operation.
    Mr. Malcolm Savidge: Have contingency plans been made for the stationing of our troops over the next few months if it is decided to continue with intrusive inspections, or were the repeated promises by the Prime Minister that war would be regarded only as a last resort worthless?
    Mr. Hoon: I have made it clear to the House on several occasions that the size and composition of the forces that are being deployed to the Gulf are flexible to allow for any number of eventualities. Clearly, that involves the continuing possibility that Saddam Hussein might, even at this late stage, accept the will of the international community and disarm in accordance with resolution 1441.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: Would it not assist the British troops enormously in their preparedness if the Secretary of State had some clear idea of what weapons they are likely to face? Can he say, in view of the excellent new relationship with the United States, whether the Americans are prepared to make public to him, or indeed to the general public, the extent and the size of the weapons of mass destruction that were provided to Iraq at the time when it was a friend of the United States?
    Mr. Hoon: The US Defence Secretary has categorically denied making those kinds of equipment available to Iraq. I underscore the fact that it is for this House to judge the contents of the dossier that the Government published as long ago as last September, which clearly set out the details of the weapons of mass destruction that we judge that Iraq has continued to develop and continues to possess.
    Angela Eagle: Will my right hon. Friend provide some reassurance in responding to today's press

    565
    coverage suggesting that the increased activities in the no-fly zones are a precursor to, or a beginning of, action in the Gulf? Will he comment on that?
    Mr. Hoon: As I said a few moments ago, our forces have been undertaking more frequent patrols in the no-fly zones with a broader range of aircraft. However, I assure my hon. Friend that they do that in response to efforts to attack them and act entirely in self-defence, in accordance with international law.
    Mr. Paul Keetch: I join the Secretary of State in paying tribute to forces that have been involved in logistics. I am sure that all hon. Members, regardless of our anxieties about the conflict, would tell him that if he can sort out the supply problems about which our constituents tell us, he will have the support of the House and the country.
    I want to ask about the RAF. The right hon. Gentleman mentioned northern and southern no-fly zones. Have United Kingdom aircraft been involved in recent weeks in targeting Iraqi ground positions that posed no threat to the northern or southern no-fly zones? When I asked him in February whether the United Kingdom had changed the rules of engagement for our aircraft, he declined to comment. Will he answer that question today?
    Mr. Hoon: On the hon. Gentleman's first observation, may I just say in passing that several comments have been made about the way in which he has "unreasonably fuelled" the criticism of the logistics arrangements? I simply report that to hon. Members. Perhaps if the hon. Gentleman concentrated on the generality rather than the occasional difficulty that inevitably arises in such an operation, we might all be better off today.
    On the rules of engagement, the hon. Gentleman is again somewhat misleading. He knows full well that Ministers never comment on them in detail. I assure him that the arrangements for patrolling the southern and northern no-fly zones remain unchanged. As he would expect, our forces are authorised to deal with any threats that Iraqi forces pose to them.
    Mr. David Chaytor: In the event of hostilities breaking out, does my right hon. Friend anticipate that Iraq will use chemical, biological and nuclear weapons?
    Mr. Hoon: That must be one of the factors that military planners take into account when preparing for any military conflict, not least in this case because continued development of those appalling weapons forms the essence of our complaint against Iraq.
    Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Having returned this morning from Kuwait with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, I join the Secretary of State in congratulating all those involved with the British military build-up there. Although there are inevitably some short-term frustrations for our soldiers, sailors and air men, we found them well prepared, in good spirits, with high morale and fully deserving much wider recognition for the success of a major deployment over a great distance so quickly.
    566
    I take issue with the Secretary of State's insistence that nothing has changed in the no-fly zone operations over southern Iraq. Is it not clear that US and UK aircraft are now pre-empting threats to allied ground forces in Kuwait that are preparing to invade? Although we continue to hope that diplomacy will avoid the need for the last resort of war, have we not already seen the opening shots of the second Gulf war?
    Mr. Hoon: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his observations, especially those about our forces and civilians who are engaged in logistics. Although it is not always the most glamorous part of armed forces' activity, it is indispensable. Without the superb work of those forces and civilians, the fighting forces would not be able to get into and remain in position.
    I repeat the point that there has been no substantial change in the arrangements for the northern and southern no-fly zones. Clearly, those forces have always been entitled to deal with any threats, whether directly to aircraft that fly above the northern and southern no-fly zones or to forces on the ground in places such as Kuwait.
    Mr. Jenkin: But the tactics are no longer simply to enforce the no-fly zones. They reflect the Government's decision to help clear the way for the invasion of Iraq, which requires the protection of British and American ground forces that are now massing to cross the Iraqi border. The B-52s that arrived at Fairford this morning are not intended to support enforcement of the no-fly zones. We are on the cusp of great events. Would not Ministers' honesty and openness about what is going on help to win the hearts and minds of the British people?
    Mr. Hoon: I am sorry about the hon. Gentleman's final observation—Ministers have been as honest and open as is consistent, clearly, with the security requirements of the situation. I emphasise to the House that no decision has been taken about the use of military force, and I repeat that there is no substantial change in the operation of the northern or southern no-fly zones.
    Since the hon. Gentleman has mentioned this—I intended to deal with it later in questions—may I tell the House that I have agreed to a United States request to deploy 14 US Air Force B-52 bomber aircraft to RAF Fairford in Gloucestershire, together with their extra support personnel? Those aircraft began to arrive at the base today. That is part of our continuing contingency preparations—no decision to commence military action
    has been made.
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: We cannot keep 30,000 troops in the desert indefinitely, so will the Secretary of State tell the House what arrangements are being made to rotate the troops?
    Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend is right to the extent that, obviously, the same forces cannot be kept indefinitely in the desert or, indeed, in any other theatre. That is certainly not part of our intention and, as is happening already with some United States forces, arrangements will be made to rotate them when and if that is necessary.

    Ministerial Meetings
    3. Mr. Andrew Mackay: What recent meetings he has had with central and eastern European Defence Ministers to discuss developments in the middle east.[99848]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): Since 24 September last year, I have had meetings with my counterparts from Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Romania, Estonia, Albania, Macedonia and Ukraine. Those meetings addressed a range of topics of mutual interest, including, where appropriate, developments in the middle east.
    Mr. Mackay: In the light of President Chirac's deeply unpleasant threat to those central and eastern European Governments who signed the Iraq letter that he would try to ensure that they did not become members of the European Union, was the Secretary of State satisfied or happy with the comments of his French opposite number when she visited Warsaw last week and told the Poles it was better
    "to keep silent when you do not know what is going on"?
    Is it not time that we told our French allies that they are behaving disgracefully, particularly towards our new friends in NATO, whom the right hon. Gentleman has been visiting in the past year?
    Mr. Hoon: We have made it absolutely clear to candidate countries that there will be no change whatever in British Government policy; we welcome the enlargement of NATO, as we welcome the enlargement of the European Union. That will continue to be absolutely central to the Government's policy.
    Mr. Chris Bryant: In any of the discussions that my right hon. Friend has had in the past couple of months, have the Poles or the Czech Republic had a good word to say for the French position; or have they been pointing out that it was France that not only systematically and deliberately supported and strengthened Saddam Hussein, but armed him?
    Mr. Hoon: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, may I assure him that we do not spend our time in such bilateral discussions considering the respective position of any other country, other than the relations that exist between this country and the country in question? So I am sorry to disappoint him: we have not had that kind of conversation.

    Armed Forces Deployment (Gull)
    4. Mr. Henry Bellingham: What percentage of the Army is deployed to the Gulf region.[99849]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): As of 25 February 2003, 11.5 per cent, of the trained strength of the Army was deployed to the Gulf region. That number is increasing on a weekly basis, as we continue to deploy those forces previously announced to Parliament. When all the previously
    568
    announced forces are deployed, approximately 25 per cent, of the trained strength of the Army will be deployed to the Gulf region.
    Mr. Bellingham: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. I am also grateful to the ministerial team for assuring the House that the Army is properly equipped. What percentage of the Army so far deployed has been issued with nuclear, biological and chemical kits? Will he confirm that the required respirators and canisters have not passed their life expectancy? Will he also confirm that the MOD has not extended the relevant warranties on that kit?
    Mr. Ingram: We have a wide-ranging support mechanism for all our troops who are deployed on the basis of the perceived and possible real threat that may arise from NBC attack. As for the respirators and the other equipment that the hon. Gentleman mentions, on the basis of the advice that we, as Ministers, have been given, we are wholly satisfied that the equipment being deployed is satisfactory, and the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), who recently visited the troops, will be able to give an equal assurance if he spoke to our people in theatre about it.
    Mr. Roger Gale: Whatever the rights and wrongs of issues that we are told may be debated by this House on many occasions, the fact is that the Prime Minister has so squandered his inheritance of trust that large numbers of people in the United Kingdom still do not believe that our troops should be in the Gulf. Many men and women with family members in the armed services are very concerned about the provision for their clothing, accommodation, and, most importantly, equipment. What practical steps is the Minister taking to reassure the families of those who may be required to sacrifice everything on our behalf?
    Mr. Ingram: The hon. Gentleman makes a very good point. It is not just the welfare of the deployed forces and the dangers that they may face that we must consider but the families back home, who, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said earlier, have to listen to some of the silly comments made in the press. Clearly, certain shortfalls exist, but there is a very big logistics chain in which thousands of people are employed in moving a wide range of equipment into theatre. It is a huge logistical exercise. In practical terms, much of the communication is done by people in bases, at barracks and at stations, where our service personnel are clustered, as well as by Ministers. We must address any concerns as best we can. We should not minimise the scale of this logistical exercise. We must, however, give the assurance that the equipment and supplies being put into theatre meet the needs of the many thousands of troops who will be deployed, and that we respect the concerns of families in all those regards.
    Mr. Keith Simpson: Does the Minister agree that the deployment of tens of thousands of our troops, particularly soldiers, to the Gulf—and the fact that they may be committed to combat shortly—means that their morale and that of their families is crucial? Both my hon. Friend the Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) and the Secretary of State have

    569
    emphasised what an important job they are doing, with little practical acknowledgement of that from the media so far. In the last Gulf war, I remember how important it was for the MOD to have a coherent media strategy. One veteran reptile cynically said to me the other day that he believes that the MOD's media strategy is not to have one. Will the Minister tell the House how many journalists are now accredited to UK forces in theatre, and what arrangements have been made for them to accompany UK forces into combat?
    Mr. Ingram: I will not descend to the type of language that the hon. Gentleman used to describe the press. [HON. MEMBERS: "Go on."] No, I won't. I am always conscious of how the press report some of my comments, so I shall try to be nice, although I must be truthful, too. There are silly stories out there, but some of them are coming back from theatre, because open and transparent lines of communication exist between the front line and families back home. We must examine each and every comment that has substance to see whether we can address it meaningfully, arid, I hope, correct the problem. Alternatively, we must see whether such comments are based on misunderstandings and, subsequently, misreporting and falsehoods by the media.
    We are dealing with a difficult media climate. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a figure on the precise number of journalists, because, if I gave him a figure today, it would probably increase by tomorrow, and it would probably increase in future. That is not the issue we must deal with. Perhaps the particular journalist whom he says is criticising our media strategy should write to tell me where his criticism lies and where the shortfalls are. If we can correct them, we will. We put a lot of effort into handling the media because of the point that he and the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) mentioned about the importance of making sure that the families back home are not being fed lies and distortions.

    Iraqi Armed Forces
    5. Mr. Andrew Robathan: What assessment he has made of the morale of the Iraqi armed forces. [99850]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey Hoon): Given the nature of the Iraqi regime and the lack of information available, it is not easy to make these assessments. However, from what information we have, we judge that the morale of the regular Iraqi armed forces is low.
    Mr. Robathan: In 1991, Iraqi conscripts surrendered in their thousands. They were badly led, cold, wet, demoralised and terrified. When they discovered that we were not going to murder them, they actually rather enjoyed being in prison camps, because we fed, watered and sheltered them, and gave them clothing. We saved many lives among those who were threatened by dehydration.
    Those conscripts believed that we were bringing them freedom; but it is rumoured that, after the Gulf war, when many of them were returned to Iraq, a great many were butchered by the regime. This time round, they will be worse equipped and they will be similarly
    570
    demoralised. What plans do the Government have to use any prisoners that may be taken—in conjunction with Iraqi opposition groups, or, perhaps, in information programmes, during the occupation of Baghdad or the reconstruction of Iraq—should there be conflict?
    Mr. Hoon: I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman's expertise in this area. I know that he served in the Gulf war and was responsible for dealing with prisoners of war.
    The judgment that I make on the morale of Iraq's armed forces depends on the extent to which they have a stake in the survival of the regime. For example, organisations that are more closely associated with the regime—such as the special republican guard and Saddam Hussein's personal security apparatus—are much more under the regime's control and therefore much more likely to continue the fight. However, I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about the position of conscripts. I understand that the majority of the members of the regular forces are Shi'as and that they have no particular enthusiasm for the regime in Iraq—although they undoubtedly feel fear because of the kind of action that Saddam Hussein has taken against their people over many years.
    In the planning that is under way for any post-conflict situation in Iraq, it is important to take account of a range of factors—including how to deal with potentially a large number of prisoners, and how to ensure that basic steps are taken to provide initial security leading to the reconstruction of the country. I assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that a great deal of thinking is under way along those lines.
    Mr. John Smith: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be a big mistake to talk down the war-fighting capability of the Iraqi army even if it does lack morale and is motivated by the fear of retribution from its leadership? Our soldiers will face a grave challenge going into battle.
    Mr. Hoon: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Because I was asked a specific question about morale, I gave the best assessment that is currently available to the Ministry of Defence. However, that does not mean that we in any way underestimate the threat that our forces face. All our planning is based on the highest level of resistance that we might anticipate, in order that our forces may be properly protected in the job that they may have to do.
    Mr. Edward Garnier: It is to be hoped that the increasing and continued deployment of United States and British armed forces in the Gulf will have an adverse effect on the morale of Iraq's armed forces. Can the Secretary of State persuade me that having about 64 per cent, of the British Army deployed on active service throughout the world is not having an adverse effect on the sustainability of the effectiveness of our armed forces in the Gulf and elsewhere? Can he assure

    571
    me that the effectiveness of our armed forces—in the Army, the Air Force or the Navy—is not affected by the huge number of tasks that he rightly imposes on them?
    Mr. Hoon: The hon. and learned Gentleman is right to raise that issue. Previously, I have responded to questions about stretch and about the impact that our various commitments have on our armed forces. There is no doubt that our armed forces are busy right around the world. The commitment in the Gulf is part of the challenge that they face. However, I rely on the military advice and judgment of the chiefs of staff and they assure me that they are perfectly capable of undertaking this particular deployment at this time.
    Mr. Jim Marshall: The answer that my right hon. Friend gave to the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) indicated to me at least that, in practice, the state of the Iraqi military poses no threat. If it is so weak, why do we have to have a proposed military invasion of Iraq?
    Mr. Hoon: I did not say that at all. Indeed, I want to make it clear to my hon. Friend and to the House that no one should assume that there is not a direct threat from Saddam Hussein's forces. I have already dealt today with the risk that will undoubtedly be faced if Saddam Hussein authorises the use of chemical or biological weapons against our forces. That is a significant threat that we might have to deal with in the event of military action being necessary. There is a range of threats and no one should underestimate the ruthlessness that Saddam Hussein has shown over the years in the use of his armed forces and in putting down a series of insurrections inside Iraq and in attacking two of his neighbouring countries.
    Mr. Gerald Howarth: During its recent visit to Washington, the Defence Committee was briefed by senior US officials about the extensive contingency arrangements currently under consideration for any post-war reconstruction of Iraq. Are the British Government being consulted on that, as we were led to believe? If so, why will Ministers not share with the House these plans which involve extensive assistance to the Iraqi people to ensure that they have supplies of food and water and medical facilities?
    I am afraid to say that the Secretary of State's reaction to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) illustrates my point. My hon. Friend made a very serious point about the possible use of Iraqi soldiers in any post-conflict reconstruction of Iraq. Can the Secretary of State not be more forthcoming or will we have to go back to Washington to get the answers?
    Mr. Hoon: I am slightly surprised by the hon. Gentleman's question, because the Defence Committee has been briefed on these matters. That information is not such that I am not willing to share it with the House. I, too, have recently visited Washington where we had detailed discussions about the arrangements in hand for preparing Iraq for a return to the international community and for the reconstruction of that country. A senior British military officer is engaged day to day in this work in Washington and, during my recent visit to the Gulf, I saw that a great effort is also being made in
    572
    British headquarters to prepare for what might happen to Iraq thereafter in the event of there being a conflict. A great deal of work is being done and I would be delighted to continue the briefing of right hon. and hon. Members that is already under way.

    Armed Forces Deployment (Gulf)
    Mr. Huw Edwards: If he will make a statement on the role of the Territorial Army in the deployment of forces to Iraq. [99852]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): The Territorial Army provides individuals for specific roles in our armed forces and also some specialist units in areas such as logistics, signals, medicine and engineering. My hon. Friend will appreciate that I cannot discuss the specific details of our military planning and of the possible roles that might be undertaken by individuals or units in the event of military action against Iraq.
    I pay tribute to the vital role that the men and women of all the reserve forces play in the defence of this country and in serving our interests with such dedication and skill.
    Mr. Edwards: Many of my constituents believe that the case for war against Iraq is yet unproven, and that is why I voted accordingly last week. Can he assure me that, if members of the Territorial Army are deployed in Iraq, that will be done with the further endorsement of the United Nations?
    Dr. Moonie: If my hon. Friend had listened carefully to the debate last week, he would have found that that was the position of the British Government. I certainly have nothing to add to that.
    Mr. Julian Brazier: The Government have already acknowledged that the review that they carried out of the Territorial Army was not necessarily entirely wise. Will Ministers now consider the fact that, by stripping the Territorial Army of most of its combat areas, they have lost most of the surge capability that enables a small professional army to expand? Are the Government willing to consider the lessons after this conflict—we hope that it will be over quickly and soon—as to whether we need a larger reserve capability so that we can expand our very fine but very small professional Army if we face a major threat again?
    Dr. Moonie: The hon. Gentleman's interest in this issue is well known. Defence planning assumptions are merely that—assumptions. Clearly, if the facts change, the assumptions will change with them. However, he is wrong. Surge capability has increased, and not decreased, as a result of our refocusing defence forces. Having large numbers of ill-trained and ill-equipped units was not the way in which to operate our reserve forces. They now operate much more closely to our front-line troops, as is seen by the number of people who we are calling up and who are ready to serve in Iraq.
    Hugh Bayley: What contribution has been made by the new Territorial Army medical training establishment at Strensall near York? In particular,

    573
    what contribution will be made by medical members of the reserve forces, and will they be equipped to deal with casualties, both military and civilian, of chemical and biological weapons, should the need arise?
    Dr. Moonie: The new set-up is proving very successful. Reserves have to be well prepared for the roles that they may have to play, and that preparation is much more effective than it was at the time of the last Gulf conflict. Units will play a major part, and I can tell my hon. Friend that they have received the training and equipment that they need to discharge their duties effectively.

    Armed Forces Deployment (Gulf)
    Mr. Edward Leigh: How many reservists have been called up to participate in Operation Telic. [99853]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): As the Secretary of State for Defence announced in a written ministerial statement on 30 January, it is our intention to serve enough call-out notices to secure a total of around 6,000 reservists to support Operation Telic. As at 25 February, 7,804 call-out notices had been issued and 3,316 reservists had been accepted into service.
    Mr. Leigh: It is becoming increasingly clear that a great deal of planning is going on in Washington, if not in London, for changing the regime in Baghdad and running Iraq after a successful war. The commitment on behalf of our Army and our reservists may be very long term. What discussions have military authorities had with Territorial and reserve forces about the time commitment that they may have to make to this operation? How many reservists have applied for exemption from service?
    Dr. Moonie: Up to now, roughly 15 per cent, of those called up have applied for deferment of one sort or another. Clearly, the numbers that we call out reflect the need to secure the numbers that we require in service, so we call out many more than will be ultimately needed. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the procedure is going well.
    Dr. Nick Palmer: As my hon. Friend will know, one of the changes made in recent years was to establish a national reserve mobilisation centre at Chetwynd barracks in my constituency. Will he pay tribute to the staff working on that complex operation, and is he satisfied with their work so far?
    Dr. Moonie: Yes, I certainly pay tribute to the dedication of the staff. The mustering centre at Chilwell is operating very well; staff are putting in long hours to carry out an enormous amount of work to ensure that reservists are properly equipped, briefed and prepared for any role that they may have.

    Armed Forces Recruitment
    Mr. Tim Boswell: If he will make a statement on recruitment to the armed forces since January. [99854]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): Audited recruitment figures since 1 January 2003 are not yet available. However, armed forces recruitment is progressing well, and the early indications are that the level of interest being shown by young people in pursuing an armed forces career reflects no discernible difference when compared to the same period last year.
    Mr. Boswell: Is it not odd that at this of all times, and when recruitment shows encouraging signs of increasing,Soldier magazine has confirmed the fears of many of us that some recruits
    "are to have their initial training courses deferred because recruiting has exceeded current funding levels"?
    Are the Department's finances so dire that such deferment has to take place, and do not the Minister and his colleagues appreciate that invaluable training momentum is being thrown away?
    Dr. Moonie: No, it is not. As a former Minister, the hon. Gentleman will know that Departments always make certain planning assumptions for the year. To ensure that the training pipeline is able to cope with the number of recruits, some training periods are being deferred from March to April or May, which hardly amounts to much in the great scheme of things. I should have thought that it would be a matter of joy, rather than condemnation, in the House that recruitment levels are exceeding expectations.
    Mr. Stephen Hepburn: Is the Minister aware that since 1997 recruitment to the armed forces in south Tyneside has more than halved? Does he have any observations on that dramatic decline? More importantly, what measures does he intend to introduce to make recruitment to the armed forces more attractive to young people?
    Dr. Moonie:: I should like to say that it is a tribute to the Government's economic policies that job opportunities in the north-east of England are looking up. Without appearing facetious, however, I am concerned when areas show a diminution in recruitment. I will consider that with those responsible to see what can be done to improve the situation.
    Angus Robertson: I am sure that the Minister would agree that an important part of the appeal of the recruitment package is the armed forces pension scheme. Will he take the opportunity to quash rumours expressed to the Commander-in-Chief of Strike Command at RAF Lossiemouth last week that under Government plans, any length of service that terminates

    575
    before an individual reaches 55 would result in a deferred pension to a new public sector retirement age of 65?
    Dr. Moonie: Until the report is received and published, I cannot give that confirmation. However, those who complete their service, according to the rules, will suffer no deferment of their pension.
    Keith Vaz:Is the Minister on target for the recruitment of more black and Asian people into the armed forces? Is he as concerned as I am about the number of claims of racial discrimination that have been made against the armed forces? If he is, what practical steps are he and his colleagues taking to ensure that racism is eradicated from our armed services?
    Dr. Moonie: We show zero tolerance to racism in the armed forces. The figures have increased dramatically over the past year, which shows that our policies on the recruitment of ethnic minorities are paying off and that those within our ethnic minorities are beginning to realise that they have nothing to fear from racism in the armed forces.
    Mr. Mark Prisk: Given the evident problems with recruitment and manpower generally, why does the Ministry of Defence believe that our armed forces should be 4,000 fewer in personnel now than just two years ago?
    Dr. Moonie: As I think I explained in an earlier answer, defence planning assumptions are not set in stone and vary according to the requirements that the armed forces tell us about. We are not the experts in that; they are. If the experts whom we employ, and our service personnel in particular, tell us what the requirements are, naturally we pay heed to them. What on earth would the hon. Gentleman do in the same circumstances?

    Eurofighter
    Mr. Laurence Robertson: If he will make a statement on the time taken for UK aerospace companies to be paid for the work they carry out on the Eurofighter project. [99855]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): All contracts for work on the Eurofighter Typhoon project placed by the Ministry of Defence or the NATO Eurofighter management agency are subject to national legislation regarding payment times. This legislation will apply equally to subcontracts placed on United Kingdom aerospace companies.
    Mr. Robertson: I thank the Minister for that answer, but he knows that that system often does not work. One company in my constituency, which does not want to be named, has waited a long time for a tremendous amount of money for working on Eurofighter and has been rebuked by Eurofighter when it has tried to chase the money. On speaking to the company, it stressed that it does not blame the Government, but it does want them
    576
    to introduce a new system that enables it to get paid at least in the same year as it carries out such a large amount of work.
    Mr. Ingram: The hon. Gentleman has been very active on behalf of that company and he is right not to name it. Indeed, it would be wrong to name any company that might be experiencing similar difficulties. We are concerned about that company and try to help British companies as much as we can. However, most of the Ministry of Defence's UK requirements for Typhoon are contracted by the NATO European Typhoon management agency on Eurofighter GmbH. We have no direct contractual relationship with either ACMA, GmbH or the company to which the hon. Gentleman refers. However, the Ministry has written to the agency, requesting that Eurofighter GmbH reminds its partner companies and suppliers of the importance that we attach to prompt payment when contractual obligations have been met. Lord Bach, who has ministerial responsibility for defence procurement, is actively dealing with the representation made by the company to which the hon. Gentleman referred, and other concerns have also been raised.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: Will the Minister confirm that over the past six years the project has cost the British taxpayer £4 billion? Does that sum include the moneys outstanding mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson)? What are the implications of the recent unfortunate aeroplane crash in Spain for the cost of the project and the delay to it?
    Mr. Ingram: There has to be a full assessment following any incident of that nature such as a crash or equipment malfunction. If modifications are required, that has to be costed into the programme. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman a figure at this stage. The project is a sizeable one, and the British defence sector, which is contributing expertise and technological input, is without doubt also gaining considerably from it. It is good for the 0British economy, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman supports that.

    Ministerial Meetings
    Mr. George Osborne: When he last held discussions with the US Defence Secretary on Iraq. [99856]
    The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Geoffrey loon): I have regular discussions with the US Defence Secretary. I last met him on 12 February in Washington.
    Mr. Osborne: Does the Defence Secretary agree that behind some of the opposition to the Government's policy on Iraq is a caricature of US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, which is a gross distortion of the truth? Will he take the opportunity to set the record straight, as the Prime Minister helpfully did when I asked him to set the record straight about George W. Bush last week?
    Mr. Hoon: I certainly find working with the US Defence Secretary straightforward. He deals with issues

    577
    in a clear and concise way, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that our discussions, although sometimes terse, are very effective.
    David Winnick: If military action is taken, what discussions has my right hon. Friend had about the future, first and foremost the territorial integrity of Iraq, but also protecting the Kurds after Saddam; the start of democratic rule; and of course the necessity for an international presence apart from the United States and the United Kingdom? Is it not essential to make it clear to the people of Iraq that democracy is our first priority?
    Mr. Hoon: I am grateful to my hon. Friend who is absolutely right. Central to the Government's policy on Iraq is preserving that country's territorial integrity, which includes ensuring the safety and security of its population, not only the Kurds, but also the Shi'as and minority groups in the country. Clearly, there will be a need for a continuing international presence in the event of military conflict in and around Iraq. It is important that the international community uses its influence, ability and resources to start Iraq back on the process of becoming a fully integrated member of the international community. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has set out our policy objectives, including the idea of representative Government in Iraq, which seems to me a thoroughly worthwhile objective for the international community.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: The Prime Minister has repeatedly stated that one purpose of any military action would be to prevent Saddam Hussein giving chemical or biological weapons to terrorists. Has the Defence Secretary discussed that with the Americans, and how could anyone ever have any assurance that no matter how much CBW material Saddam Hussein gave up he had not retained other material that could be given to terrorists? Is not the logic of the Government's position that that could be prevented only by removing Saddam Hussein from power once and for all?
    Mr. Hoon: That is why it is important that the regime in Iraq complies fully with the terms of Security Council resolution 1441, and does not simply play the games that it appears to be playing at present. I have told the House many times since 11 September 2001 that those appalling events threw into sharp focus our need to ensure that we are protected against threats wherever they may arise in the world. We should therefore concentrate, as we are doing, on not only the continuing terrorist threat, but the threat posed by Saddam Hussein both in his capacity as a leader of a state and his willingness to support terrorism. We are therefore right to have regard not only for the safety and security of the region, but of the wider world.
    Jeremy Corbyn: Has my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State seen the authoritative report in yesterday'sIndependent on Sunday, which says that the United States is prepared to use toxic gases in Iraq that would be illegal within the terms of the chemical weapons convention, and that Britain would not use them and would not transport them on behalf of
    578
    the United States? Given this report, what discussions has my right hon. Friend had with the US Secretary of State? Will he impress upon him that illegal action by anybody is illegal and should not even be contemplated?
    Mr. Hoon: I am confident that the United States, like the United Kingdom, will fully respect its obligations in international law.
    Patrick Mercer: As British troops mass alongside American troops in the Gulf, so both forces become vulnerable to chemical and biological attacks, which I believe that Saddam Hussein is capable of launching. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Government have ruled out retaliating to such attacks with nuclear weapons?
    Mr. Hoon: The hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that Governments do not comment on the use of nuclear deterrent. We foresee no circumstances at present where nuclear weapons would be required. They are a deterrent but they are not necessarily war-fighting weapons. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has made clear, we see no circumstances in which they are likely to be used in the operation that we are discussing.
    Ann Clwyd: Will my right hon. Friend tell me what protection is being offered to the Kurds of northern Iraq in the event of Saddam Hussein using chemical weapons against them again? Does he know whether the UN inspectors have visited the border between Saddam Hussein's part of Iraq and the Kurdish part of northern Iraq, especially round Chamchamal, where the Kurds have seen rockets on the hillsides? They believe that there is the capability of firing chemical weapons at them all over again.
    Mr. Hoon: Given Saddam Hussein's track record, my hon. Friend is right to raise concern about the plight of the Kurdish people in northern Iraq. That is why over so many years Britain's forces, together with those from the United States, have been patrolling the no-fly zones. In a situation of military conflict, we will be concerned about the position of the Kurds and other groups inside Iraq. It is part of our thinking in relation to what we might find in the event of military conflict and thereafter that efforts will be made to protect the Kurds and others against the threat posed directly by Saddam Hussein's regime.

    Troop Inoculation (Gulf)
    Dr. Vincent Cable: If he will make a statement on the progress being made towards inoculating British forces in the Gulf against diseases which could be spread by weapons of mass destruction. [99857]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): Immunisation is an important component of our armed forces' defences against biological weapons, alongside their detectors, training, warning and reporting systems, decontamination procedures, and other medical countermeasures such as antibiotics.

    579
    Anthrax used as a biological weapon represents a real threat to our armed forces, and independent expert advice confirms that immunisation offers safe and effective protection against it. We are expanding our programme of immunisation against anthrax for the armed forces in phases, and beginning with units held at the highest readiness, with the aim of making immunisation against anthrax routine for all service personnel. All United Kingdom units deployed or nominated to deploy in the Gulf have been included in the programme.
    We have announced plans to vaccinate a cohort of nuclear, biological and chemical specialists and frontline medical personnel against smallpox. This is not in response to any specific or immediate threat but a sensible precaution, against a potential global threat, which will enable our armed forces to mount an effective response in the event that smallpox is used as a biological weapon. A number of those personnel included in the cohort have deployed, are deploying, or will deploy on operations in the Gulf.
    Dr. Cable: Can the Minister confirm that, because of fears of a repetition of Gulf war syndrome, more than half of all armed forces personnel have refused to have inoculations, and only one in five is inoculated? If, as the Minister says, the inoculations are harmless, how can he justify sending troops into action who are unprotected against the most lethal weapon in Saddam Hussein's germ armoury?
    Dr. Moonie: I assume the hon. Gentleman is talking about anthrax, rather than about routine public health inoculations. A pedant would tell him that he is wrong, and that about 51 per cent, of those who were offered the vaccination have taken it. The percentage rises in the forces that foresee themselves being most directly affected, with the result that the percentage among those likely to be deployed on land is between 65 and 70 per cent.
    Gregory Barker: This morning in a written statement the Home Secretary made an important announcement regarding civil contingency planning to deal with a potential terrorist dirty bomb or biological attack on London. Can the Minister tell the House how many members of the armed forces are expected to take part in such a home exercise, and whether all those individuals. professionals and reservists, have been issued with NBC protective equipment and clothing and vaccinated against smallpox and anthrax?
    Dr. Moonie: I have made it clear with regard to smallpox that we are vaccinating the cohort of people who would then have to vaccinate others in the event the very unlikely event—of an attack taking place. I cannot comment in detail on planning provision for potential terrorist attacks, other than to say that our plans are robust and that they will, of course, include appropriate protection for those involved.

    Armed Forces Deployment (Gulf)
    12. Angela Watkinson: If he will make a statement on the size of United Kingdom armed forces on duty in the Gulf.[99858]
    14. Mr. Desmond Swayne: How many British troops are stationed in the Gulf. [99863]
    The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): I refer the hon. Members to the answer that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State gave a few moments ago to my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. David) and the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Goodman), and the answer that I gave to the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham).
    Angela WatkinsonWith a quarter of the Army deployed to the Gulf, is the Minister confident that there would be enough troops to cover firefighting duties, should negotiations with the Fire Brigades Union break down and another strike be called?
    Mr. Ingram:Yes.
    Mr. Swayne: What proportion of the troops deployed to the Gulf are earmarked for post-war reconstruction and peacekeeping roles? How long can we afford to keep them there, and what will be the impact on our other commitments? Does Telic really stand for "Tell everyone leave is cancelled"?
    Mr. Ingram: It is easy to be cynical about the deep and complex series of issues that we have to address. As regards aftermath planning—what is to happen in the event of hostilities—a considerable amount of work is going on, so that there is a flexible range of options, because the nature of the environment could range from benign to extremely hostile. We have to plan across a range of possibilities. It would be wrong to give a precise answer to the hon. Gentleman's question, and I am surprised that he asked it in the way that he did.
    Michael FabricantWith the Turkish Parliament's decision not to allow American troops into Turkey, what assessment has the Department made of any increased risk to British ground forces who might have to fight the Iraqis on one front only?
    Mr. Ingram: We have to plan across a range of eventualities for the future deployment of forces. Again, it would be wrong to set out the detailed assessment of possible outcomes from the scenarios painted. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would understand that that is important for our own troops and because others could exploit any information that we give.

    Suez Medal
    Mr. Bob Blizzard: When he will make an announcement on the award of a service medal for veterans of the Suez canal campaign in 1951–54. [99864]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): A sub-committee of the HD Committee—the Committee on the Grant of Honours, Decorations and Medals—chaired by Lord Guthrie of Craigiebank, took evidence from canal zone veterans and the Ministry of Defence on 22 November last year. The recommendation regarding the possible case for a medal in respect of service in the canal zone between 1951 and 1954 was passed to the HD Committee for its consideration. Until the members have concluded their deliberations, the matter must remain under review, but I will make an announcement when their findings have been published.
    Mr. Blizzard: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and hope that the announcement can be made soon. Does he agree that there are very special circumstances
    582
    relating to the case for awarding a medal for the Suez veterans? In particular, the commander in chief at the time applied for a medal, but the claim was never properly considered by the HD Committee. Are these not unique circumstances that justify the award of a medal retrospectively?
    Dr. Moonie: I think that my hon. Friend is well aware of my views on this subject, but we must be very careful in this matter to ensure that, if retrospection is to be breached, there are very clear and watertight reasons for doing so. The confusion about what happened when the action took place is well documented. Clearly, that was behind the decision to refer the matter back through the HD Committee to a sub-Committee for its consideration. In the very near future, I hope to be able to tell him and others the results of the deliberations.

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. A very significant vote took place in the Turkish Parliament on Saturday that has an impact on British foreign and defence policy and obviously that of the United States as well. Have you received a request from a Minister seeking to make a statement on the issue or will there be an opportunity some time this week for Members to express their interest in this matter and their admiration for the Turkish Parliament on its preparedness to say no to George Bush's war drive?
Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Thank you for granting me the opportunity to raise this point of order. I understand from Sky news that B-52 bombers have been deploying to RAF Fairford in my constituency all morning. Have you received any information from the Secretary of State for Defence saying that he intends to make a special statement on this matter so that we can question him specifically about it?
Mr. Speaker: The matter was raised during questions.
Mr. Julian Brazier: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I seek to raise the propriety of the correction by way of a letter of a major financial mistake made on the Floor of the House. On 9 December, I asked the Secretary of State to confirm that defence expenditure would be significantly lower as a proportion of GDP in the following year than in any year under the previous Government. In reply, he told me that that was completely incorrect and said that the level was sometimes higher and sometimes lower under the previous Government. The truth is that the proportion of GDP being spent is the lowest since the 1930s. Since then, I have received a courteous letter from the Minister of State in which he admitted that the Secretary of State had made a mistake and said that the letter had been copied to the Library. Have you had any application from the Secretary of State for an opportunity to correct the matter on the Floor of the House?
Mr. Speaker: No, but I get the feeling that the hon. Gentleman wanted to put the matter on the record.
Mrs. Alice Mahon: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Secretary of State for Defence was repeatedly asked about the B-52s and the change in bombing over Iraq in the past few days, which is a radical departure from only protecting the no-fly zones. Some of us think that war has already started through the back door and that last week's debate was an absolute mockery, while we were given an assurance that we would be consulted further. Given the lack of any answers to genuine questions, may I ask you to request that the Secretary of State comes back to the House and gives a full and proper statement in which he answers the questions asked today?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady can apply—I am not inviting her to do so—for an urgent question. That is the procedure that she should follow.

Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism
[Relevant document: Fifth Report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights of Session 2002–03, on the Continuance in force of sections 21–23 of the Antiterrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, (HC 462).]
3.33 pm
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett): I beg to move,
That the draft Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (Continuance in force of sections 21 to 23) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 23rd January, be approved.
As on previous occasions, I want to express on behalf of the House our thanks to all those who have worked so diligently over the past 20 months to secure our wellbeing, ranging from those in the intelligence and security services, the anti-terrorism branch and the enforcement agencies to those working in our Department who have given time, energy and commitment. I am very pleased that Sir David Omand is co-ordinating and working so well in ensuring that the Government, our agencies and those working with us are prepared for what the Prime Minister in his Mansion House speech and I in my publication of 7 November described as an issue for the years ahead, rather than the weeks and months.
Following the events since the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 was passed, all of us have become aware that we are in for a very long haul indeed. It is on that basis that we need incrementally to learn from experience and what has happened around us and build on that for the future.
As I said on 13 February, we must recognise that levels of security will rise and fall, and that on occasions information provided both internally and across the world indicates a heightened threat level. Let me also again make it clear that exercises will be necessary to make us better prepared to test existing arrangements, and to be honest about whether they are adequate. Over coming weeks we will organise such an exercise here in London to ensure that we are satisfied—and can satisfy the House and the public—that we are as prepared as it is possible to be, in the real world, for any internal attack, including chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear attacks. We ask for the patience of the House and the public, and for calmness, during the undertaking of such exercises.
The efforts that have been expended since part 4 of the Act was passed are well known to those who have taken an interest. I pay tribute to the Intelligence and Security Committee, which, in continuing its work, has been able to scrutinise Ministers and hold them to account, and also to report to the House as it did last July and will again this year.
In renewing the power contained in the Act, I feel sure that if anyone had doubts originally, what has happened since will have swept away concern about whether our action was proportionate. Later this afternoon my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will deal with issues connected to the threat level relating to the attack in Bali, but the lesson of Bali is clear: completely innocent people were the target of that attack. Endeavours to attack innocent people across the world have been foiled

585
by appropriate action on the part of the security and intelligence services, and by policing in a range of countries including ours.
Mr. Andrew Dismore: I do not doubt the importance of this legislation, particularly when we are dealing with the likes of Abu Qatada, but have there been any requests for extradition by other countries of those currently being detained?
Mr. Blunkett: I am not aware of a request for the extradition of any of the 13 individuals whom we are currently holding in detention under part 4, including sections 21 and 22. I am of course mindful of the need to respond to requests of that sort. That is why, both through the extradition legislation we are updating and through general procedures, we are trying to improve the processes involved.
Sir Brian Mawhinney: I do not think it would be appropriate for me, as a member of the review committee, to take part in the debate, but I would like to ask the Home Secretary a question, as a Member of Parliament rather than a member of the committee. Does he intend to publish a summary of actions taken under various parts of the legislation for the information of the House, as part of the renewal procedure?
Mr. Blunkett: The right hon. Gentleman and I had constructive exchanges when the Bill was going through Parliament. In a later part of my speech—I shall try to be brief—I will spell out all the new arrangements both for informing the public more widely of what we have agreed here, and for reassuring the House that the information will be readily available to Members.
Simon Hughes: The Home Secretary will remember that the precedent for this legislation going through was the Government's request for Parliament to agree to a derogation from article 5 of the European convention on human rights. Although opposed from the Liberal Democrat Benches, that was agreed to by Parliament. The Joint Committee on Human Rights has made it clear in its report that in order to comply with our international obligations we have to declare a public emergency and that that was not done explicitly before. Can the Home Secretary make it clear whether he intends from now on that, if there is what he or the Government regard as a public emergency, it will be formally declared in a way that does not allow any doubt?
Mr. Blunkett: We had not only excellent advice but the decisions of the Appeal Court in relation to whether we were justified in taking the steps that we took. I will repeat this later but the Appeal Court verified our actions following the appeal to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission. I have been very pleased to receive advice from the Joint Committee on Human
586
Rights. My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, East (Jean Corston), the Chairman of that Committee, gives me regular advice extraneous to the Committee's.
Mr. John Bercow: Even when you don't ask for it.
Mr. Blunkett: Yes, even when I do not ask for it. I am very pleased to receive it.
I think that the Appeal Court was an appropriate venue—
Jeremy Corbyn: The Home Secretary will be aware that many people in this country are very worried about the great powers that he is given under this legislation and feel that it undermines any respect for normal law and judicial processes. Can he give some indication how much longer he expects the legislation to last? And would it not be better to rely on the criminal law and the open courts system, rather than the great power that has been given to him as an elected politician to detain people indefinitely?
Mr. Blunkett: This House determined that we would have an annual renewal of the order and the derogation. This House determined that we would have the review by Lord Carlile, to which I shall come shortly. This House determined that there should be the review committee to which the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir Brian Mawhinney) referred—of which he is a distinguished member—under the chairmanship of Lord Newton, and that there would be a sunset clause after five years. I do not think that there has ever been an Act or part of an Act that has been subject to as much review, scrutiny, renewal and cancellation as this—and rightly so because of the salience of the power being used not simply through me but in terms of the procedure that has to be adhered to and the determination of this House as to whether renewal and derogation from article 5 are justified.
The events around the issue of ricin; the alert three weeks ago at Heathrow; our action to proscribe additional organisations; the evidence that has existed across Europe on arrests; and the discovery of plots and plans for terrorist actions against civilians throughout the world lead to a justification for asking the House to renew both the order and the derogation this afternoon. It is in the context of recognising the importance of exercising the power with great discretion but also of recognising that we need to protect ourselves from those who recognise no legal procedures, no boundaries and no parameters in terms of the action they are prepared to take, that I am satisfied that there remains a public emergency, that it is as spelled out 15 months ago, to refer to the point that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) made, and that therefore we need to ask the House to renew the power.
David Winnick: I recognise some of the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) —the rule of law is absolutely essential, although I do not believe that this contradicts the rule of law—but is it not a fact that if a terrorist could commit an atrocity such as 11 September in Britain, they would not hesitate for one moment because they believe that we are non-believers, infidels?

587
They believe that we have no right to live, just as the Nazis considered that the Jews, Slays and gypsies had no right to live. We must recognise that we are faced with a deadly enemy that will strike whenever it can.
Mr. Blunkett: I am afraid that my hon. Friend is right. I say "afraid" because, if we were dealing with people who we could talk to, negotiate with and understand so far as the parameters that they are following are concerned, we would be in an entirely different situation in terms of the nature of the international terrorism that we are debating today, and which we have debated on a number of occasions since the Act was approved in December 2001. The many measures undertaken under the Terrorism Act 2000, and under the 2001 Act in general and part 4 in particular, have been undertaken only where no alternatives were available. In holding in detention the 13 people to whom I referred earlier, we are also mindful of trying to speed up the process. They decided, presumably on the advice of their solicitors, to challenge the whole validity of part 4 of the Act. That was dealt with in the first instance by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, and then by the Court of Appeal. It was agreed that we had both the right and the power, that we were exercising it properly, and that it was proportionate. It is in that vein that we are having today's debate.
Mr. David Cameron: Given that one reason why it was necessary to take these powers is that the Home Secretary is no longer able to deport everyone whom he thinks is a potential threat to the life of the nation, what will he do when he can no longer place his hand on his heart and say that we face a threat to the life of the nation because of international events, and yet these people are still here?
Mr. Blunkett: If they themselves posed a threat according to the way we laid out that threat in the Act—in terms of their behaviour and contacts, and of the way in which their links affect the likelihood of terrorist action—we would not recommend that the House cancel the powers under part 4. That is the purpose of seeking annual renewal: to make the assessment, and to seek guidance from those who are independently advising us on the operation of that part of the Act. I want to pay tribute to Lord Carlile for his work in providing us with the first annual review. His timely comments are helpful. He supports the need for these powers, and he has confirmed that they have been exercised correctly, as laid down in the Act.
Mr. Chris Mullin: Did my right hon. Friend note the suggestion by Lord Carlile that if the law were amended to make actions preparatory to committing an act of terrorism a criminal offence, it might be possible to subject some, most or all of these people to due process?
Mr. Blunkett: I hesitate to take on Lord Carlile in an area in which he has enormous experience and expertise; however, were it possible through normal legal procedures to identify actions that would lead to terrorist acts—and were we able to provide, in court, evidence of the level required to stand up to the normal processes we would of course do so.
Mr. Mullin: That brings us to the point about telephone intercepts. The Home Secretary will recall
588
that a debate has been going on for some time as to whether telephone intercepts should be made admissible in court. Were that to happen, it might be possible to provide a standard of evidence that would enable these people to be convicted by due process.
Mr. Blunkett: I see no reason at all why I should not tell the House that a consultation is currently taking place on whether there should be a change. There have been considerable differences of opinion among security, intelligence and law enforcement agencies in this country for many years as to whether that would be appropriate. Let me say this as carefully as I can. Anything that prevents the security services from being able to undertake the kind of work that leads them to pre-emptive action, and not just prosecution—or undermines that work—is deeply unfortunate. If people were to withdraw from their normal practice, or if they thought that by engaging in normal communications they would be subject to court action and therefore ceased—and that put us at greater risk—we would have gained nothing and lost much. We seek to achieve a balance.
Mr. Bercow: Given that it would be difficult ever to declare that we had won the war against terrorism, that relentless surveillance is required, and that it would be difficult to say with alacrity that this country no longer faced a particular threat, does the Home Secretary agree—further to the inquiry from my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) —that in practice, the sunset clause notwithstanding, the power seems destined to remain in place for much longer than five years? By the way, I mean no indictment of the right hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Blunkett: The power is destined to remain as long as it enables us to protect ourselves against the international terrorist threat. That is what it was put in place to do. Should the threat recede to the point at which we believe that the powers are no longer appropriate or applicable, I would be the first—as I said when we passed the legislation—to tell the House to say that we no longer needed to renew them.
Mr. David Heath: The Home Secretary was earlier explicit that this country faces a condition of emergency and that that is the justification for these powers. Is it his assessment that the qualitative threat to the United Kingdom is greater than that to other western European countries? Is he satisfied that the areas of co-operation within Europe, for the exchange of information between security and police services, are adequate to the task of dealing with the terrorist threat?
Mr. Blunkett: On the second issue, I am absolutely clear that the level of co-operation that now takes place is materially improved from when we first met, at the Justice and Home Affairs Council on 20 September 2001, to address those issues, both in terms of collaboration between European states and between Europe, the United States and other international partners. We are continually trying to improve matters.
The hon. Gentleman's first point was addressed when we debated the Bill. We considered what would be appropriate in the new circumstances. For the

589
avoidance of doubt, I should repeat that we believe that the order complies and is compatible with the European convention. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding me to say that.
Simon Hughes: Will the Home Secretary give way one last time?
Mr. Blunkett: Yes, although I have never known it to be for one last time.
Simon Hughes: For today. Following the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), can the Home Secretary confirm that apart from the general reservation that France has had since the beginning about being a signatory to the European convention, no other country has sought derogation to allow the same powers and, therefore, that must mean that it is believed that Britain is subject to a different and greater threat than all other European Union countries? Does he think that it would be better if SIAC dealt speedily with the appeals so that a judicial hearing could be held in this country on the validity of detention, instead of people having to wait for a final decision?
Mr. Blunkett: On the hon. Gentleman's first question, we took the view, which we repeatedly spelled out in the debate on the comprehensive measures in the Antiterrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, that we faced a specific threat level to this country and that that required us to take the actions under part 4. The certification that I have engaged in reflects that. I indicated to the House when we took these powers that they would be used sparingly, and they have been. I said that they would be proportionate, and the Court of Appeal agrees that they have been. The decision, on the advice of the lawyers, of those who are held under sections 21 to 23 to challenge the validity of the measures as a whole is precisely why there has been such a delay in dealing with individual cases. I hope that they can now be processed within a matter of weeks so that those individuals have the right to be heard judicially and to challenge whether what we have certificated was proportionate and acceptable. I should like us to be able to get on with that.
I want to make one further comment about Lord Carlile's report. He recommended that there might be a discrete and specific change to the way in which those held under part 4 were held. I have authorised that we should make such a provision available should the individuals choose to take it up. It would not be appropriate compulsorily to move all 13 into one area against their will and I do not intend to get into a secondary dispute about that. Lord Carlile put perfectly valid arguments concerning the length of time for which they had been held and might be held, suggesting that we should consider that urgently, and I have agreed that we should.
Mr. Mark Francois: The Home Secretary will be aware that earlier today his Department issued a written ministerial statement entitled "Civil contingency
590
planning to deal with terrorist attack", which is obviously related to this matter. The penultimate paragraph states:
"We will issue proposals for a new Civil Contingencies Bill in the summer."
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, Conservative Members have been pressing for such legislation for some time, so will he inform the House of his prospective timetable for that legislation and, specifically, when he anticipates that it will be enacted?
Mr. Blunkett: First, I want to make it clear that there has been no delay in the original timetable that was envisaged and spoken to by the Cabinet Office in relation to that Bill. It was always envisaged that we would update the historic legislation in terms of emergency powers and address the structural changes at regional and local level that such a Bill would allow us to undertake. The draft Bill will be published in the summer and put before the House in the autumn. It is important to recognise that in doing so we will be able to assure people that we are talking about updating and learning from experience in terms of the structural framework, as opposed to taking measures that need to be passed immediately, which we would do if it was necessary in order to safeguard our basic interests. Most people who have been involved in these changes are aware that they should perhaps have been made in the normal way a long time ago, and it is opportune that we are now able to bring them forward as quickly as we can and to reassure hon. Members that having the legislation in draft will allow their views to be taken into account.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) for mentioning the statement that I put out today on investment in civil resilience and on key areas for future work and the way in which we need to proceed.
The right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire asked me about the material that should be made available. I have been looking with colleagues at what we should do to provide greatly improved access to the public, as well as to the House, in relation to what is already on the public record and is not held in terms of security-vetted material. That will ensure that people are much more aware, first, of what is being done, secondly, of the exercises that take place and why they take place and, thirdly, the kind of advice and information that the public would seek for themselves.
I therefore intend to establish in the next few weeks a dedicated website that will draw on all the readily available advice of the security and intelligence services, on civil resilience information and material that Departments publish on their task of protecting the public in this country. It will include readily available information not only on general civil contingency, resilience and protection but on specific events such as the emergency in and around Heathrow. We shall do that not least to ensure that people understand the difference between operational responsibility and accountability and politicians' responsibility and accountability.
We will be able to reassure people when they listen to the radio or watch television that, for example, action has been taken to provide adequate measures for

591
smallpox vaccination. More than £30 million has been spent so far on acquiring the necessary vaccines, and more than 20 million doses exist in reserve. According to historical information, more than 50 per cent, of the population are already vaccinated against the disease. As the Minister of State for Health announced on 2 December, we will be able to advise people about vaccinating volunteers in the health service and in the armed forces as a preventive measure to ensure that they can do their job.
Given that politicians are not held in high esteem and trust is not readily given, politicians, including me, will not seek vaccination against smallpox unless the vaccine is made generally available to the population. We want it to be readily available to those who are closest to action such as ring-fencing areas to provide buffer zones.
I hope that the BBC as well as the general public can draw on the new website. However, I ask the BBC not to make weekly endeavours to worry people without cause. If information that should be available is not, and if so-called advisers believe that their advice has not been taken, we should act accordingly. I advise anyone who wants to say, in private or publicly, that there is a problem to come forward. I am thinking in terms not of a whistleblower's line but of an independent method other than approaching the "Today" programme whereby those who would like to throw suspicion on our preparedness or willingness to listen and act can express their views. We could thus sort matters out in a civilised and intelligent fashion without creating scare stories.
I shall also ensure that the hard copy of the material on the website is readily available in libraries throughout the country, although most are online and can assist people to gain access to it. I hope that that will establish a more open and transparent method of reassuring as well as informing, and that the necessary advice will be provided. We do not intend to replicate events in the United States and, to some extent in Australia, where there is the equivalent of "Protect and Survive". Older hon. Members will remember from the 1960s that that was mocked as being ridiculous.
We will not provide a ready market for those who would mislead people into believing that they have to buy this, that or the other for protection, thereby creating an industry rather than providing for reasonable and sensible protection. However, we shall ensure that we tell the public about any definable, specifiable risk. We will also tell them what is necessary to enhance their protection. We do that because we are in the same position as them. That is why I made the earlier comments on vaccines.
Jeremy Corbyn: I am interested in my right hon. Friend's comments. Does he realise that a sort of hysteria is currently sweeping the United States, where everyone is buying ducting tape in the belief that it will protect against all ills? Will he try to persuade the British public that such actions smack of panic rather than sense?
Mr. Blunkett: Similar tape is produced in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Mr. Gardiner), so I shall be extremely careful about what I say because, I think, President Ford
592
finished off the broccoli industry in the United States. [Horn. MEMBERS: "It was Bush senior."] Was it? Goodness gracious! Right. President Bush senior.
The danger of the kind of advice that would lead people to go out and buy particular materials is self-evident. In the US, a new danger has arisen from people doing that—they have sealed off the normal sources of ventilation in their homes—so we all have to be extremely careful that the advice that we give is both sensible and proportionate and that it helps people to protect themselves, but I repeat that if there were a specific measure that would protect people in a set of circumstances where we believed that a particular threat was imminent or that that threat could be dealt with in that way, of course, we would have to say so.
I repeat that we believe that the renewal of the order and the derogation are justified and that the House should scrutinise this issue. It is correct that we should continue to issue updates and to ask for the public's patience not only where emergency measures triggered by intelligence and security advice have to be put in place, but where we undertake exercises precisely to identify where we need to take further action. It is in that spirit that I ask the House to renew the order this afternoon.
4.6 pm
Mr. Oliver Letwin: I should start by saying that we have no intention whatever of seeking to divide the House on this measure. We agree with the Government that it will be necessary to continue the order in force—not that the Government are quaking in their boots about any effort on our part to stop it, but it is important to state our view at the outset.
The Home Secretary rightly and generously says that this part of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 is more surrounded, as he put it, than any other by reviews and sunset clauses. I use the word "generously" because there was an acknowledgement of the fact that Conservative Members and our colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches fought him into surrounding it with those devices. I hope that the next time the Home Secretary, in one of his less irenic moods, accuses us of having forced him to battle such things through, he will admit that it was rather a good thing that he did have to battle it through.
Having said that, it is important to pay attention to the character of the review that has taken place. As one would expect, Lord Carlile has produced a very serious report. The Home Secretary has announced today, if I understood him correctly, the acceptance of a slightly modified version of eight of Lord Carlile's recommendations, and we strongly welcome that. I agree with the Home Secretary that such things should be voluntary; we should not seek to force the 13 individuals, or subsequent individuals, into one place against their will.
It was interesting, en passant, that the report makes it clear that Lord Carlile discerned a difference between the conditions at Belmarsh and those at Woodhill, and I hope that the Home Secretary will pay attention to that. I am delighted to see that he is nodding.
Two other elements of Lord Carlile's report deserve pretty immediate attention, and I hope that the Home Secretary will be able to take them fully into account.

593
The first is Lord Carlile's first recommendation that the pending hearings before the Special Immigration Appeals Commission should proceed without awaiting the final determination of the challenge to the derogation. We all know how long it may take a case to go not just to the House of Lords, which will happen relatively soon in all likelihood, but—Lord Carlile makes this point —to Strasbourg, and it would be a great pity if we had to wait two years. Again, I am delighted to see Ministers nodding.
Perhaps more controversially, Lord Carlile referred to links to terrorism under section 21 of the 2001 Act—an issue that the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), and I raised on numerous occasions during proceedings on that Act.
Lord Carlile provides a splendid example of why we all pay lawyers so much in his examination of how we might tackle the problem of links. His exposition is lucid and, I find, compelling. In conclusion, he says that the
"use of the word 'links' gives rise to understandable concern."
He continues:
"It is unclear to me that there would be any detriment in terms of public safety if that word and indeed section 23(4) were removed from the Act and section 23(2) (c) amended to read—
(c) otherwise supports or assists an international terrorist group'".
I find that a compelling suggestion. I cannot understand why I did not think of it when the Act was a Bill now that I see it so well laid out; perhaps I did not hire legal advice as expensive as Lord Carlile's. As we now have the invaluable recommendation of an expensive and brilliant lawyer—at the Home Secretary's expense, not mine—I hope that he will take account of that suggestion.
I am not sure in what context that change can most expeditiously be made, and nor am I suggesting that we have another anti-terrorism Bill on the stocks before one can say, "Jack Robinson", "David Blunkett" or some such phrase. I hope that the Home Secretary will find a suitable moment, without adding to our legislative burdens, to introduce that change, and we would certainly co-operate with that.
With those adjustments, we are entirely convinced that the continuation is sober, proportional and right. The Home Secretary has evidently conducted his part of the bargain with exactly the seriousness that one would have expected. Lord Carlile makes it perfectly clear that he had access to all the information, and that he is content that all the decisions that have been made were made on the basis of the kind of consideration that was required.
Having occupied a few minutes saying with what we agree, I wish to occupy only a few minutes saying with what we do not agree. Strictly speaking, it is not the subject of the review, but I hope that the Home Secretary has given me licence to deal with it by mentioning the subject himself: the related question of the degree of preparedness to deal with a terrorist attack were it to occur.
Mr. Cameron: Before my right hon. Friend moves off detention without trial and the linked issue of
594
deportation, will he reflect on the answer that the Home Secretary gave me? Given that we opted out of the European convention on human rights with reference to
"In time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation",
what will this Government or any other Government be able to do to protect this country once that no longer exists? People who use the asylum system and who may threaten the life of the nation are still here, yet we cannot deport them.
Mr. Letwin:I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that rhetorical question. He knows—as I, and, as it recently transpired, the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration, who is present, also know—the answer to that question is that the right and sensible procedure is that which we recommended repeatedly when the Bill was going through the House. That procedure is that we should engage in the elaborate dance of denunciation, legislation and reservation to move to the position at which we have so reserved against article 3 that the Home Secretary can do what I am sure that he would have done and what his predecessor, the current Foreign Secretary, sought to do when he was Home Secretary: to deport those people rather than having to retain them indefinitely in detention.
My hon. Friend was right to unearth the point that, at any stage at which it becomes difficult to claim that a generalised state of emergency exists, it will be difficult to maintain the derogation that provides the basis for the legality of the current proceedings. Individuals may remain who are a great danger to the state, however, and it would be appropriate to be able to deport them, as the current Foreign Secretary, who was then the Home Secretary, sought to do in the case of Singh and Singh. As I have said, that will require the reservation for which we have argued.
I hope that, in due time—as we discovered just a few days ago that the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration is clear about it—the Home Office will also move to adopt that procedure. Of course, the Home Office will have to overcome the difficulty of persuading the Foreign Office, which shows remarkably little inclination towards anything that might protect British interests in its negotiations with foreign powers, but we will leave that be.
Simon Hughes:Does the right hon. Gentleman accept in his heart of hearts that, rather than the highly risky suggestion of leading the way out of the European convention and risking not being allowed back in, it would be far better to use the provisions of the Geneva convention that allow people to be turned or sent away if they have committed a serious crime, and the derogations procedure—even if some of us do not care for it—that allows a temporary exclusion from rights in cases of national emergency?
Mr. Letwin:Mr. Speaker, I am astonished at the latitude that you are allowing me in discussing this issue, and I shall not impose too far on your good will. We have investigated the possibility that the hon. Gentleman raised. It is attractive in principle but falls jurisprudentially. I fear that the judiciary will interpret article 3 as overriding that procedural device. The hon. Gentleman and I could spend a happy half-hour after

595
this debate, during which I could take him through the legal advice that we have received. I suspect that the advice is parallel to that received by the Home Office, because the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration gave us such a pellucid explanation of the very suggestion that I had made a year previously, which she described as impossible just a few days ago in the House.
I want to do what the Home Secretary asked me to do by implication. He said that anyone who wished to raise a problem, in private or in public—although I am not sure which of those the Chamber of the House of Commons is these days—should do so here and not on the "Today" programme. I cannot fulfil all parts of that request as I have already been on the "Today" programme today—although I am aware that the Home Secretary was thinking of others. However, I wish to raise a problem now.
The problem is difficult to describe. It is not a problem of a lack of will. I hope that it has been clear to the Home Secretary that I accept entirely that he and his officials—and, indeed, Ministers and officials in other Departments—are keen that we should be properly prepared against terrorism. After all, this is not a matter of party political debate: it is not as if any of us is going into the next election on the question of, "Should we, or should we not, be prepared to deal with terrorism?" We all agree that we should be prepared and that Ministers and their officials wish us to be prepared.
It is also not exactly a problem of things being so maladministered as to be heading in the wrong direction. There is no doubt that Ministers and their Departments have gradually been moving towards greater rather than lesser preparedness.
So far, so good, but the problem is that I am not sure whether so far is far enough or fast enough. In fact, I am pretty sure that it is not. Partly because we are dealing with things that may necessarily be secret—which therefore I do not know or wish to know—and partly because we are dealing with things that are, almost inevitably, intangible and unable to be documented, it is difficult to get at the sense of what is going wrong. At any rate, it was difficult before today. It has become easier today. The Home Secretary has vouchsafed to the House a statement on civil contingency planning to deal with terrorist attacks.
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman said earlier that I was allowing him some latitude, but he is now stretching the point just a little too far. We must keep to the order that is before us.
Mr. Letwin: Mr. Speaker, if you will allow me to respond to the precise points that the Home Secretary made, without straying any further, that would be enormously kind.
The Home Secretary said that he would set up a website a little while from now. However, that is not what the written statement says. It says:
"Information for agencies and the public is available through".
and goes on to name the websites. We went to one of those websites this morning. What does it do? It gives one a link to what is done in Australia. It is otherwise empty.
596
The Home Secretary referred to smallpox and smallpox vaccination. For the life of me, I cannot understand why that is not available on demand to all those who wish it. I will never understand that until it ceases to be the case.
Mr. Blunkett: I do not want to take the time of the House, but I shall make two brief points. First, the new website will be designed specifically to put together all the information available, including that from the security services when it is not secret. Secondly, I do not believe that there is a problem with people approaching their general practitioner for the smallpox vaccination. If there is any difficulty with that, I will happily talk to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.
Mr. Letwin: That is very constructive. There is a difficulty at present, because people cannot obtain the vaccination, but it is good news that the Home Secretary will speak to the Department of Health. In fact, it would be good for him to think of signing a memorandum of understanding with the Department. We found that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister recently felt that it had to do that with the Department of the Health. Have things not come to a strange condition when two Departments of State have to sign memorandums of understanding between them?
The Home Secretary's written statement refers to a range of Ministers and units. As well as referring to the Minister responsible for London resilience—we already knew that the Minister responsible for the fire service and for destroying local government in the south of England had that role—it refers to a new figure appearing on the scene. Although the post may not be new, its holder is new to the British public. I very much doubt that anyone was aware that the Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety also doubles as the Minister responsible for co-ordinating the response to chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear—CBRN—threats. As the written statement says, the role has existed since the end of 2001, but no one in Britain knew that. This Minister has been active in dealing with the police; everyone in England knows that he has responsibility for them. However, I do not think that anyone has ever heard him speak about CBRN co-ordination.
Mr. Bercow: Who is this person?
Mr. Letwin: I am speaking about the Home Secretary's colleague who has just left the Government Front Bench—the Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety. He has reappeared in the written statement as the Minister responsible for co-ordinating the response to CBRN threats. That was a genuine shock to me. I thought that I was an observer of this scene and would have noticed who was responsible. I thought that the Minister of State, Cabinet Office was responsible for this issue, and then I thought that the Minister responsible for London and who is also responsible for the fire service had responsibility for it.
Mr. Mullin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. What are we debating? Are we debating the renewal of the

597
Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 or the written statement put out by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on an entirely different matter?
Mr. Speaker: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that point. The right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) is miles away from the issue that we should be discussing.
Mr. Letwin: With his usual acuity, the Chairman of the Home Affairs Committee is on to something. I could not resist the opportunity of pointing out a real problem. Now that I have done that, I shall not intrude on your goodwill, Mr. Speaker, or that of the House any further. I have made my point. There is a problem that desperately needs to be resolved because it deals with the life and death of our citizens. In the meantime, let us, by all means, continue with the operation of the Act.
4.23 pm
Mr. Chris Mullin: We all agree—at least, those of us who have studied the matter in any depth—about the need for these measures even though we might do so reluctantly. We recognise how draconian they are. We also recognise that it is not inconceivable that they will remain in force for many years. Therefore, the people who have been detained will remain detained without trial for many years. It behoves us to get this right.
I propose to make a few remarks about a couple of issues that have already been touched upon: the conditions in which such people are held and the consideration that has been given to the alternatives. Reference has been made to the safeguards that exist, and the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) put them down to the assiduous opposition of himself and the Liberal Democrats. In fact, several proposals, including the sunset clause, appeared in the report of the Home Affairs Committee.
Mr. Letwin: It would be churlish of me not to admit that that is perfectly true.
Mr. Mullin: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. Other proposals came from the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
As the House might imagine, I agree with several points that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made. In particular, I agree with his point that the measures have been used sparingly. There was some fear when they were first mooted that they would be applied to a far larger number of people, and we must be grateful that that is not the case.
I have already made a couple of points that were taken up by Lord Carlile, and I hope that they will be considered seriously. Lord Carlile suggested amending the law to refer to "acts preparatory to terrorism". He said:
"if the criminal law was amended to include a broadly drawn defence of acts preparatory to terrorism, all could be prosecuted for criminal offences and none would suffer executive detention".
That went slightly beyond the scope of his review, but given the source of the suggestion, it ought to be taken seriously.
598
I have already made the point about intercept evidence. I understand that, among the security services and others with an interest in this area, there is a strong difference of opinion about whether it is desirable to make intercept evidence available in court. I shall watch with interest the outcome of any review.
Turning to conditions of detention, certainly it was the case early on that people were held in pretty harsh conditions in Belmarsh. At one stage, they were allowed only 30 minutes out of cell during the day. When the measure was being introduced, Lord Rooker said that they would be held in remand conditions, and not alongside convicted prisoners. I know that some improvements have been made since the low point that was touched early on. I think that I saw Martin Narey quoted as saying that people are now allowed out of cell for seven hours and various other measures have been taken.
If we are to hold on these terms people who are unconvicted, I hope that we will, as we were assured at the time of the measure's introduction, detain them in conditions that reflect the fact that they are unconvicted and that their detention is indefinite. At one stage, there were signs that detention was beginning to damage the mental health of some of those held, as it might do to any of us in those circumstances.
Mr. Bercow: I do not want unduly to embarrass the hon. Gentleman, but I agree with his remarks about the treatment of people who are unconvicted. Surely we need an assurance of national security and not of personal privation. If we can be reassured that proper procedures are in place to guarantee the former, there need be no requirement for the latter.
Mr. Mullin: I completely agree, and I am glad to see that the point unites hon. Members on both sides of the House.
I turn now to a compelling point made by Lord Carlile about allowing appeals from abroad to be made by those who have been detained under this measure, who have agreed to go abroad and who have found a haven to accept them. At the moment, people in that position who take the view that they are not terrorists have no means of removing the stain, and it is quite a large stain, from their character. I imagine that only a handful of people would want to take advantage of the opportunity to appeal, but the possibility ought to be left open. As we know—we saw it with the pilot whom the Americans were trying to extradite some time ago—the security services can be wrong in the information that they lay before Ministers, or further information may come to light which casts doubt on the original. As Lord Carlile says, there ought to be some mechanism by which people can remove that stain from their character.
Finally, at paragraph 6.13 of the report, Lord Carlile touches on alternatives to custody. I do not suppose that he means community service but, to return to the point made by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), the purpose of the exercise is to satisfy ourselves and those whom we represent that such people cannot pose a threat. Once we have done that, all other considerations melt away. Lord Carlile suggests that restrictions on movement—perhaps even tagging—could pose an alternative to what are otherwise

599
extremely draconian measures. I shall not go into too much detail on that for fear of being denounced as a namby-pamby liberal, which I am not. Although it is not my suggestion, it is in the report, so I hope that the Home Secretary will address it.
4.31 pm
Simon Hughes: The motion deals with important and controversial matters, as hon. Members know from our debates on the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill 15 months ago. The discussion has been even tempered and balanced. A coalition of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Conservative and Liberal Democrat Front Benches in both Houses ensured that we could discuss the issues again, and I am glad to have the opportunity to do that.
I think that the Home Secretary remembers, however, that the votes cast at the other end of the building, principally by Liberal Democrat and Conservative colleagues, along with a few Labour and Cross-Bench independent Members, made it clear to the Government that they could not get away with an indefinite provision along the lines that they wanted. We have no regrets about that. Through intelligent conversation, and frantic legislation, we came to a collective decision that it was necessary to build in safeguards for what is a derogation from an important human right. Like other hon. Members, we will not divide the House on the motion. To put it bluntly, we are in the middle of the process for which protection was given by review and checks and balances. Having persuaded the Government and Parliament to accept various checks and balances, it would be unreasonable and unfair not to allow them to be used to the full. That does not mean, however, that the issue is of any less importance.
It remains a difficult matter, not just for liberals and Liberal Democrats, that a power is in force in the UK which is outwith the European convention on human rights—it is a derogation from it—and the Human Rights Act 1998, which we passed only four and a half years ago, to allow people to be detained indefinitely without trial. That is of considerable concern. It is of most concern to the people in question, who are held without having been found guilty of anything. There may be only a handful of them and I concede to the Home Secretary, as I have set out consistently, that he has been true to his word and used the power sparingly. We should be grateful for that, but it is not a legislative requirement on him. He has chosen to use that discretion properly within the powers, which are significant. There is no limit to the number of people who could be detained under them. As it happens, only a few have been.
However, some people have been detained and it is no surprise that the fifth report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, published last Wednesday as a preparation for today's debate, begins:
"Although the Bill"
now the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001
"was improved in a number of ways during its parliamentary stages, we continue to be concerned about a number of aspects of it."
600
Specifically, the Committee was worried about
"a new power to detain indefinitely a class of 'suspected international terrorists' contained in Part 4 of the Bill … which was only doubtfully compatible with Convention rights."
Over the page, the Committee expresses a second concern about
"the Government purporting to derogate from the ECHR Article 5 … to make the derogation … effective in the law of the United Kingdom by amending the Human Rights Act 1998"
by way of a derogation order. The Committee continues:
"The legal validity of the derogations and of the Order is currently the subject of legal proceedings, and their impact on human rights in the United Kingdom may be significant."
We share the Committee's continuing concern, which is why we are glad that we persuaded the Government with our voices and votes to bring the measure back to Parliament after 15 months before the power could be extended. They will have to do so annually and, in addition, the measure has a limited lifespan. However much we have argued with the Home Secretary about whether there was justification in law—I have told him publicly that I have never questioned the integrity of his judgment on the necessity of the measure—it is better to have flexibility in the use of the ECHR and the Human Rights Act, which was built in from the outset, than question, as some have done, the very basis of the convention.
The ECHR is not an inflexible document and it allows derogation for such a purpose. The Home Secretary argued 15 months ago that we ought to have the derogation as we needed that protection and it was likely that others would follow us. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) implied in his intervention, no other European Union country has subsequently sought to derogate from the ECHR. None the less, flexibility, together with parliamentary scrutiny, is a much better alternative to ripping up, rewriting and renegotiating the convention. We believe that the convention should stand and are glad that the Human Rights Act was passed, allowing arguments to be made in the court down the road instead of people having to wait six, five or four years to go to Strasbourg. We hope that the public accept that that is an advantage.
I intervened on the Conservative spokesman partly to remind him and the House that there are other protections to deal with an issue uppermost in the public mind and the tabloid press. There is an argument that we cannot turn away somebody who is claiming asylum even if they are a threat to our national security, and cannot revoke their right to be here even if they are such a threat. It is clear from article 1F of the Geneva convention on the status of refugees that somebody who has committed a crime against peace—a war crime or a crime against humanity—can be refused entry, whatever they are claiming. Article 33 states that the benefit of asylum provisions
"may not, however, be claimed by a refugee whom there are reasonable grounds for regarding as a danger to the security of the country in which he is, or who, having been convicted by a final judgement of a particularly serious crime, constitutes a danger to the community of that country."
The fear that asylum seekers are outwith the protection of the law on national security and are a threat is misplaced. It is wrong, unfair and often prejudicial to pretend that they are.

601
Finally, there is the linked question of whether there is a category—this is the basis of the Home Secretary's original argument—of people whom we could send away under the ECHR but not for other reasons of international law. We accepted the Home Secretary's argument that there are people in that category when he came to the House seeking the power. We argued then, and continue to argue, that there are other ways in which to test their position, for example by trial in camera to protect security information and so on. It is always better to try alternatives to the option of detention without trial. We were not satisfied—we are still not satisfied—that all the options have been exhausted.
I add my thanks to the Home Secretary for using the power sparingly, in the sense that that was honouring his commitment. I also thank Lord Carlile of Berriew, who produced a clear report with some significant recommendations. The Home Secretary said that he would look into at least one of those recommendations. The right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) has argued that it would be better if we redefined the people with links with terrorism. We sign up to and share that view. If that can be agreed, I hope that an amendment can be incorporated soon. We agree with the recommendations of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, to which I shall return.
The Government offered the concession—it was accepted a year and a quarter ago—that there should be a cross-party Committee of Privy Councillors to examine the working of the Act. That work is now taking place. Lord Newton of Braintree is chairing the Committee. I understand that before it is necessary to have this debate again, the Committee will have produced its report. That is one of the specific reasons why we feel that it would be wrong to say that we should not wait a little longer. The Committee is in the middle of its work. Having accepted that as a protection mechanism, it is only right that we should wait for it to report. We wish the members of the Committee well and we look forward to their report, which I am sure will be honest and helpful.
The fifth report of the Joint Committee of last Wednesday picks up some of the other specific issues to which the Chairman of the Home Affairs Select Committee has referred. I shall mention them so that they are on the record and ask the Home Secretary, or the Minister of State when she replies, 'to undertake that the Government will consider them all. First, in paragraph 20, it is recommended that a different power should be given to the Special Immigration Appeals Commission to examine material so that it has
"both 'open' and 'closed' material",
and is able to form a view about that so that it can form a better picture.
Paragraph 21 states that the availability of appeals is a safeguard, and adds that the Home Secretary would want to urge that they must happen, and happen soon. It is no good having a safeguard that is held up while another legal process happens. It may be proper to go to the House of Lords and the European Court of Human Rights to challenge the validity of the decision made last year by the Court of Appeal, which tested the national
602
emergency issue. However, that is not acceptable if that is to the exclusion of the ability to have the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, which has the powers of the High Court, to be able to determine whether detention is unlawful. That is why the provisions were made. The fact that appeals have not been determined is not what we expected. I hope that that situation will be remedied extremely soon.
It would be helpful in future if the Government made a clear statement setting out when they believed that a public emergency had been achieved, as it were, so that there could be, as the Select Committee recommended, an official declaration of that, rather than that being done implicitly and, as happened last time, belatedly. In addition, the Select Committee referred to the appropriateness of legal advice. A recommendation is made in paragraph 42 that there should be a better guarantee of appropriate legal advice that is speedily available to detainees, and that that should continue at all stages in the appeal process. It is said that there should be no less ability to be represented at the Court of Appeal or the House of Lords than at a lower level.
Paragraphs 47 and 48 state that any piece of evidential material should be classified as "closed"—that is, not able to be seen—
"only if there are substantial grounds for thinking that making it available to the detainee, or his or her legal advisers, would compromise the effort to protect the public against the national emergency that gave rise to the derogation under … article 15."
The problem, as the Committee points out, is that Parliament—including, possibly, the Intelligence and Security Committee—cannot form a view about the immediacy of the national threat and the national emergency if it does not have access to the maximum possible material. Therefore, we ask that the Government respond positively to those recommendations, which were made in a balanced way, as well the recommendation about the conditions of detention.
One reason why it seems to us that today there is a case, without dividing the House, to allow the power to continue is that court hearings about the validity of detention are under way. We accept the point of view expressed by the Home Secretary today—although I have heard him put things slightly differently, if I can be gentle about it—that the courts should always have the ability to review the Executive. It is a safeguard of the constitution that the courts exist to check on the Executive, just as Parliament does—Parliament first, hopefully by getting the legislation right and holding Ministers to account, and the courts later.
I realise that it is not the responsibility of the Home Office, but it is difficult and unacceptable enough that there is a period when people are detained without trial in this country, but at least there are safeguards. It is entirely unacceptable for British and other citizens to be held in a place such as Guantanamo bay when there are no powers for them to be brought before the courts. I hope that the Home Office will make representations to the Foreign Office, if it has not done so already.
It is not compatible with any sense of international human rights that there is a part of the world to which people can be taken, whatever their nationality, that appears to be outside the legislative and judicial purview of some independent tribunal. That is not acceptable. It is bad enough that people are held without trial in

603
Belmarsh prison or elsewhere; it is doubly and triply worse that people are held without trial on the other side of the world, with no justification having been proved before any independent authority at all.
Jeremy Corbyn: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for missing the early part of his speech. Is he aware of reports that the United States is considering taking prisoners from Afghanistan, and possibly Pakistan, to be imprisoned on Diego Garcia and interviewed there? Although the Government assure us that there are currently no prisoners on Diego Garcia, what would be the legal situation of any prisoners, given that it is a British territory?
Simon Hughes: I sincerely hope that we would not allow that to happen. One argument that I have heard in regard to Guantanamo bay is that it has American jurisdiction, so America is allowed to determine the matter. However, I was troubled by a ruling by a court in the United States that that was outside its legal jurisdiction. That seemed entirely incompatible with all traditions of human rights and international law. We must have stronger voices from the Foreign Office.
The tradition in this country has always been that people have a right to a trial before the courts can lock them up. The imprisonment of suspected terrorists, no matter how few or how many, without charge or trial is an extraordinary departure from the norm. We opposed those powers 15 months ago because we did not believe that the case for them was made out sufficiently to mean that other alternatives would not have sufficed. However, given that there is, as every one of us across the House must accept, a real and ongoing terrorist threat, we are prepared to accept the renewal of the powers for the limited further period of a year.
In the meantime, it is a consolation that the Government's activities are subject to the strongest scrutiny, both by Parliament and the courts, but it is better to have occasional exemptions and derogations from the Human Rights Act 1998 than not to have a convention on human rights or a Human Rights Act at all. We are prepared to argue for the continuing tradition of human rights in this country on the basis that we will always be vigilant and that we will always hold the Government to account.
4.49 pm
Mr. David Cameron: In the minute that remains to me, I should like to make a couple of very short points.
I support the measure, just as I did when the Bill was introduced. A number of Opposition Members get slightly fed up with the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary telling us that we did not support the legislation. Of course we do not like it and we question it—that is what we are supposed to do—but we see that there is no full alternative at the moment. I wanted to talk about trying to work at an alternative by restoring the Home Secretary's powers to deport people.
I asked the Home Secretary earlier about the power that he is taking in using article 15 of the European convention on human rights to derogate from article 5. I pointed out that, in order to use the power, he has to claim that there is a
604
"time of war or other public emergency threatening the life of the nation".
That public emergency will not last for ever. The problem that we face is that some people who have used the asylum system to come to this country threaten it, and that problem will continue unless we restore to ourselves the ability to deport such people.
That is why article 3 is so important. As I have said many times, it does not include the word "deportation". It is the interpretation of the courts that has internationalised article 3, which simply states:
"No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment."
Under the Soering case and other cases, the article has been internationalised to apply to non-EU citizens who happen to be in this country and to every country in the world, whether or not it has signed up to the convention. Until we deal with that problem, I am worried that the law in question may have to stay in force very much longer than any of us want, as the Home Secretary will come back each year with a similar proposal. He may not be able to say clearly that a public emergency is threatening the life of the nation, but he will know that individuals are threatening this country. As he cannot deport them, however, he will have no choice but to use the power that he is taking.
In referring to the power, the Joint Committee on Human Rights cited in its excellent report a quotation from Winston Churchill:
"The power of the Executive to cast a man into prison without formulating any charge known to the law, and particularly to deny him the judgement of his peers, is in the highest degree odious and is the foundation of all totalitarian government whether Nazi or Communist."
That is the power that we have to have in part, because in court cases under article 3 we have lost the right to remove from this country people who threaten it.
4.52 pm
Mr. Nick Hawkins: Although this has been a short debate, it has been a very serious one, as befits the very serious issues that we are discussing. In passing, I say to the Government business managers that an hour and a half is perhaps rather too short a time to discuss such serious matters. Perhaps there should be a Southwark, North and Bermondsey allowance, given that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), who speaks for his party, took twice as long as my right hon. Friend the shadow Home Secretary and effectively used all the Back-Bench time. I shall be brief.
My right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) made it clear that we support continuation of the order. The legislation, which is hedged around with sunset clauses and reviews, is in the form in which we wished it to be enacted. As my right hon. Friend pointed out, the Home Secretary approved that hedging around with sunset clauses and reviews, but those changes were introduced only after a pitched battle in which, as the Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), said, both Liberal Democrats and Conservative Members voted against the Home Secretary, and in which both the Joint Committee on Human Rights and the Home Affairs Committee wanted the safeguards to be introduced.

605
My right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset pointed out that Lord Carlile identified differences between Her Majesty's prisons Woodhill and Belmarsh. Opposition Members welcome the Home Secretary's acknowledgement that that is a serious issue that needs to be looked into. My right hon. Friend also pointed out that the Special Immigration Appeals Commission should continue to proceed without awaiting the final determination of the challenge to derogation, which may take two years and may go to Strasbourg. He also referred to Lord Carlile's concern about the possible need to consider rewording sections 23(4) and 22(3)(c) of the Act to make the phrases in those provisions more effective.
The hon. Member for Sunderland, South rightly pointed out that the current security situation might prevail for years, and that people might therefore remain detained for years. I think it fair to say, however, that there is still serious concern among Conservative Members and outside the House about those who canvass actively for terrorist organisations, particularly some associated with the Finsbury Park mosque. It is feared that the powers taken by the Home Secretary have not been used to detain specific individuals who are often in the public eye, and who seek actively to publicise support for terrorist groups.
Jeremy Corbyn: As the hon. Gentleman may know, the Finsbury Park mosque is in my constituency. I hope he is aware that the individual to whom I assume he was referring has been removed and banned from the mosque, that the mosque itself is not open as it is awaiting repairs and refurbishment, and that the perverted form of Islam preached by that individual has zero support in the area and the local Muslim community.
Mr. Hawkins: That is why I used the words "previously associated", as the record will show. I see the hon. Gentleman nodding assent, indicating that he had understood me to say that. Nevertheless, concern continues, and I think that concern legitimate. We want these exceptional powers to be used sparingly—as the hon. Member for Sunderland, South said—but to be used where appropriate for the protection of the state. We should not allow our proper concern for safeguards and human rights to overtake our primary concern as parliamentarians in all parts of the House, which is to secure the safety of the British people.
The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey described the way in which the legislation, in its final form, came into existence, through votes in another place, and spoke of the built-in safeguards. He said, and we agreed, that it would not be appropriate to divide the House when the matter is in mid-process. He praised the Home Secretary for using the power sparingly. He expressed his view on the derogation, which was different from mine and that of my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset. He talked about the limited use of the powers, about the Geneva convention, and about the discussion he had had with my right hon. Friend when he intervened earlier on the different legal views that we take on that issue.
606
The hon. Gentleman accepted that there should be continuing use of the new Committee of Privy Councillors chaired by my noble Friend Lord Newton of Braintree, which also includes my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir Brian Mawhinney), who intervened earlier. He described concerns prompted by the recent report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. We agree that its view should be taken seriously: there is no division between any of us on any side of the debate in that regard.
My hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) was worried about the way in which our support for the legislation has sometimes been misrepresented—inadvertently, I am sure—by the Home Secretary and others. It has been suggested, even by as distinguished a figure as the Prime Minister, that we opposed it. We never did. We sought to amend and improve it, and following our success in improving it through the votes in another place the Home Secretary now praises the final version. I hope we shall not hear the Prime Minister misrepresent the position in future.
We support the continuance of the legislation, but we want the Government to listen carefully to the views we have expressed, and will go on expressing, about ways in which it could be improved still further and ways in which people who are a threat to this country may in future be deported rather than merely being detained.
4.58 pm
The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration(Beverley Hughes): I thank Members for the quality and tone of this debate, which were similar to those of the original debate on the legislation. They underlined the fundamental importance of the powers in the orders and the seriousness with which all Members take them.
We consider the detention powers in part 4 to be a fairly carefully crafted response to the threat, closing unacceptable loopholes that would allow foreign nationals suspected of involvement in terrorism and threatening our national security to be at large on the streets. A difficult decision and difficult issues are involved, but we think this is the best option. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary regularly reviews the need for the powers, and we are very pleased that the Court of Appeal upheld them in its judgment earlier this year.
I am very short of time, as hon. Members will realise. I shall try to deal with as many of the points raised as I can, and I will respond later to hon. Members on the points raised that I am unable to deal with.
The right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) asked about appeals proceeding without waiting for the outcome on derogation. He will probably know that SIAC is proceeding on that basis and we agree that it is right that it should do so.
The issue about links that the right hon. Gentleman raised from Lord Carlile's report is less straightforward. Certainly, we are prepared to look at that, but he will remember that there was considerable debate at the time the Bill went through. A Government amendment, to which he referred, tabled by Lord Rooker attempted to deal with those issues. We think that section 21(4) of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act as it is now worded should provide for the concerns that he

607
expressed, but if the matter is continuing to cause concern certainly we will look at it again in the context of considering in more detail Lord Carlile's report.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) also raised a number of points from Lord Carlile's report. Again, the issue about acts "preparatory to" terrorism is less straightforward. We think that the recommendations relating to that point are encompassed by procedures already available to us, but again we will look at it. In relation to allowing for appeals from abroad where someone has been certificated but has gone voluntarily, SIAC has already determined that appeals may be continued from abroad. In fact, the two people who have already left are continuing their appeals against the certificates from the places to which they have gone.
Certainly, we will consider the JCHR report in some detail. In response to a number of hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes), who have raised the issue of appeals to SIAC, and the point that the possibility of appeal is undermined by the delay in SIAC hearing those appeals, that delay is not caused by SIAC or, indeed, by those acting on behalf of the Government. The delay arises from the decision of the counsel for some of the appellants to deal first with the derogation issue rather than the appeal against the certificates. We had no involvement in that decision.
I have every sympathy with the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), who I am sure would have put a much fuller case for his point, which I understand fully. However, I think that it is another Trojan horse for the Conservative position that we should come out of the ECHR and seek to re-enter with a reservation on article 3, which we have already heard several times. He must accept that these are difficult issues. He argues for the ability to deport people knowing that they may be killed if they are sent to places to which they could go back—
It being one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the motion, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Standing Order No. 16.
Question agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 (Continuance in force of sections 21 to 23) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 23rd January, be approved.

Bali Bombings
[Relevant documents: The Intelligence and Security Committee Report, Inquiry into Intelligence, Assessment and Advice prior to the Terrorist Bombings on Bali, 12th October 2002 (CM5724) and the Government response thereto (CM 5765).]
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. —[Mr. Heppell.]
5 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): I welcome this opportunity to debate the report on the Bali bombings produced by the Intelligence and Security Committee on 11 December last year, and the Government's written response published on 26 February.
The atrocity in Bali was an appalling act of terrorism. The slaughter was indiscriminate. People from many faiths and nations lost their lives. Many countries suffered terribly, not least Indonesia and Australia. For the United Kingdom, it was one of the worst terrorist attacks in our history—26 British and dual nationals died. I was reminded of the impact of the tragedy on communities across the UK only last month, when I attended the very moving memorial service for the victims, which was held in Southwark cathedral.
In the days and weeks following the attacks, the agony of those who had lost loved ones was compounded by speculation that the Government could have done more. In particular, there were allegations that we did not act on specific intelligence pointing towards an attack in Bali, and failed to inform the public of the dangers in advance.
It was for this reason that in my statement to the House on 21 October, I commissioned a review by the Intelligence and Security Committee to examine the Government's intelligence, assessments and advice prior to the bombings on 12 October. As I said in my statement to the House on 21 October, I did
"not want the relatives of those who died in this atrocity, nor those injured, to have nagging anxieties about whether different judgments" [Official Report, 21 October 2002; Vol. 391, c. 23.]
could "have been made."
The House had an early opportunity to discuss the report on the day of its publication, 11 December, when I made a statement. I am sure that the whole House will wish to join me in extending thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Ann Taylor), the Chair of the Committee, and to her colleagues in this House and in the other place, for their diligent work in putting together their response. The ISC produced a comprehensive report based on evidence from Ministers, from officials in the intelligence agencies and in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and from travel industry representatives.
I welcome the fact that the Committee's report found that it had
"not seen any intelligence that described or directly related to any form of terrorist attack on Bali on or around 12 October 2002",
and that on the basis of the available intelligence
"there was no action that the UK or its allies could have taken to prevent the attacks."

609
I hope that this finding provides a measure of relief for the
relatives of the victims. I also welcome the Committee's conclusion that in the months leading up to the attacks, sufficient priority was given to intelligence collection in respect of Indonesia.
The report did, however, contain two broad criticisms of the threat assessment process, and of the system that we have in place to provide accurate and timely travel advice to the British public, so let me deal with these in turn. First, the Committee said that the Security Service failed to make the correct assessment of the level of threat to British interests on the basis of the available intelligence. So it did not challenge the available intelligence, but it did say that incorrect assessments were made on the basis of it. In particular, the Committee's report said that the Security Service's current six levels of threat assessment did
"not provide sufficiently clear differentiated definitions of the threat level. They need to be of greater use to customer departments".
The Committee said that although the Security Service had briefed the FCO orally, it took too long—more than two weeks to issue a report on Indonesia in the aftermath of a failed attack on a United States diplomatic property in Jakarta on 23 September. The Committee also found that, given the intelligence on a terrorist attack in Indonesia and the
"reluctance of the Indonesian authorities"
to deal with the threat, the Security Service made a "serious misjudgment" in failing to upgrade its assessment of the threat to general British interests from"significant" to "high".
The Security Service acts under the authority of the Home Secretary, so I will keep my remarks on these matters brief and to the point. Having been Home Secretary, I realise that my right hon. Friend the current Home Secretary is responsible for the running of the Security Service as a whole. My right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) will respond to points of detail relating to the Security Service, but I should say that, having worked very closely with it and its officials in my four years as Home Secretary—as well as continuing to witness their work in the 21 months since I became Foreign Secretary—I have the very highest regard for their professionalism and integrity, and for the trouble that they take to make the best assessments that they can, always on the basis of inadequate information, for that is the nature of intelligence.
During the period preceding the Bali bombings, Security Service experts, in assessing the threat to British interests in Indonesia, took account of all the available information as being significant. This means that the security climate was such that our general interests were likely to be a priority target for terrorists. However, the Security Service judged at the time, and continues to judge, that the intelligence referred to in the ISC report was not specific enough to cause it to raise the existing threat level to "high" from "significant".
I realise that that is a point of difference with the ISC. The Security Service takes the ISC's recommendations seriously and, in many other respects, they have been accepted, but it is right for me to place on record that if
610
the Security Service had judged that it had made an error, I would have brought that to the attention of the House. The Security Service has reviewed the evidence and believes that its original judgment was correct.
Dr. Julian Lewis: The problem is the terminology. The use of the word "significant" does not make it clear enough, to those who have to decide whether they wish to take the risk of going to a place with that threat level, that it means—as the Home Secretary has just said and as the Committee's report confirms—that the place is
"a priority target of terrorist activity".
Surely the problem is not the grading that the Security Service gave to the level of threat but the fact that the word used for that level did not sufficiently convey the seriousness of the accurate threat assessment that had been made.
Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman is on to something, but we do not include the Security Service's raw threat assessment in the published travel advice, which reflects the intelligence assessments. Including the raw threat assessment would, on occasions, compromise the source of the intelligence—if it changed suddenly, for example, it could send a signal to the terrorists—and would be more likely to cause confusion in the minds of the public. I shall address the issue of how we aim to improve the travel advice in a moment, but at present we use the threat assessment as one input, and set it against other inputs, including the capacity of the local law enforcement and intelligence agencies to cope with a threat, to come to a description of the threat that the tourist, business person or British resident is likely to encounter in that country. In certain circumstances, we also offer advice about whether people should travel there at all, or in qualified circumstances.
Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed): Will the Foreign Secretary note that there was a direct consequence of the Security Service not raising the threat level, which was that the Foreign Office did not revise the travel advice? It would have done so if the threat level had been raised, even if it had been raised to some intermediate level that was not available to the Security Service at the time.
Mr. Straw: It does not follow that because the threat level changes, the travel advice is automatically changed. The right hon. Gentleman is correct to say that had the threat level changed, it would have triggered a review of the travel advice. However, at the moment, threat levels move up and down, and the result of the Foreign Office's review of the risk, according to the Security Service's objective threat assessment, ends up on my desk or in my box. Often, I decide not to change the travel advice because it could need to be changed back the next week and that would promote confusion, not clarity. It would not necessarily improve the safety of the British public, which is always the paramount concern.
As the Committee noted in its report, the Security Service was already reviewing its threat assessment system before the Bali bombing. The Committee's recommendations have informed that review and I am pleased to tell the House that it will result in changes to

611
the definitions of threat level, making them more informative to customer Departments, such as the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. That picks up the point made by the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis).
Counter-terrorism co-ordination is probably better in the United Kingdom than in most comparable countries. We do not have the inter-agency competition seen elsewhere on both sides of the Atlantic, but that does not mean that we should be complacent. We are continually taking steps to improve. As set out in the Government's response last month, experts from the agencies and relevant Departments will shortly be located in an expanded single joint terrorism analysis centre. Acting under the director general of the Security Service, that centre will be responsible for the long-term strategic assessment of the terrorist threat, as well as for the day-to-day response to specific intelligence. I share the Committee's concern that reports should be issued in a timely manner, and that will be a major objective of the new organisation.
I want to return to the point that the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) made about the intelligence that we received that mentioned Bali along with five other very large islands in Indonesia. Even if that intelligence had led to a change in travel advice, it might have remained very unspecific. It is important to make a point that the Committee itself made—that is, that we had received no intelligence that alerted us to the specific possibility of a terrorist atrocity taking place in Bali. Had there been, we would have ensured that that was reflected in the travel advice. I was anxious to make sure that the Committee was able to do its work and that, to that end, it had full access to all the intelligence. As was initially made public by Alexander Downer, Australia's Minister for Foreign Affairs, then confirmed here, the intelligence that mentioned Bali also mentioned five other huge islands in Indonesia, so it covered about half the population and 70 per cent. or so of the destinations travelled to by western tourists.
Mr. Beith: The Foreign Secretary did indeed give the utmost co-operation to the Committee, for which we are grateful. However, surely the question that nobody asked at the time was, "Where in the whole of Indonesia is it possible to attack the largest number of western tourists with the greatest ease?" The answer has to be Bali, because that is where tourists were gathered in concentrations in nightclubs, and we know how dangerous a situation that is. That is where the misjudgment took place.
Mr. Straw: The right hon. Gentleman says that with the benefit of 20–20 vision. When the judgment was made, the information was very unspecific, and tourists go to a large number of other destinations. The situation cuts both ways. Although western tourists congregate more in Bali than elsewhere in Indonesia, that is offset by the fact that Bali is overwhelmingly a Hindu, not a Muslim, island, so it should be a predominantly safe environment in which terrorists find it much more difficult to operate and to hide. Those are the kinds of difficult judgments that have to be made. I regret that the intelligence services did not have available specific intelligence saying that there was likely to be a serious terrorist threat in Bali because, for sure, we would then
612
have alerted the law enforcement agencies in Bali and Indonesia, and we would also have immediately changed our travel advice. The truth about modern terrorists in the global village in which we live is that they can move anywhere in the world extremely quickly and that the equipment that they need to commit such atrocities is highly portable.
Lembit Öpik: Paragraph 44 of the conclusions and recommendations says that
"on the available intelligence, we do not believe that the attack could have been prevented."
Does the Foreign Secretary agree that it is vital that people recognise that this is not an exercise of risk elimination, but has necessarily to be an exercise in risk management, and that the only way in which we can eliminate the risk is by eliminating the original motivation for the terrorism, which was not the remit of the report?
Mr. Straw: It is a matter of risk management. There is a wider issue about the way in which we deal with terrorism. I have always believed that we did that through a combination of the toughest security and, when possible, a political process. However, I stress to the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) that it has been difficult enough to develop a political process in Northern Ireland, where at least the terrorist groups had political front organisations, which had a developed political agenda. Although they were trying to blow up democratic institutions, they also stood for them. It is much more difficult to know how to reach accommodation with some religious terrorist organisations, which carry out suicide bombings.
Of course, I accept the hon. Gentleman's underlying point that if we can make significant progress on peace in the middle east and deal with terrorism through a combination of political process and effective security, that should help to change the overall environment. We are working on that. I also agree that we are conducting an exercise in risk management, not risk elimination. I shall comment on the nature of our travel advice in that context.
Ann Taylor: Will my right hon. Friend comment on the fact that British residents in Indonesia were given better advice through the e-mail service than travellers from this country received from the general Foreign Office advice service?
Mr. Straw: As ever, my right hon. Friend anticipates me. I shall deal with that specific point shortly, and if she is not satisfied with the reply, I shall give way again.
We are setting up a new, joint terrorism analysis centre. One of its major objectives is to produce more timely advice. The second broad criticism in the Intelligence and Security Committee's report covered the Foreign and Commonwealth Office's travel advice. The Committee found that the advice at the time of the Bali atrocity did not accurately reflect either the threat or recent developments in Indonesia. However, the report acknowledged that the advice was proportional to the assessment of the threat that the Security Service conducted.
The Committee reported that travel advice was not generally communicated to the public or the travel industry effectively, and that the purpose of the FCO

613
travel advice should be reviewed. In my response, I welcomed the reports from the Intelligence and Security Committee and the Foreign Affairs Committee and their valuable and timely examination of our travel advice system. Along with consular, immigration and commercial services, providing travel advice is my Department's core, front-line service to the British public. It is increasingly important.
British nationals make 60 million trips overseas each year. In addition, 15 million British nationals live overseas. The demand for advice is growing. My Department's website has 28,000 subscribers who receive changes to travel advice as they issue. We also receive 675,000 page impressions of travel advice each month. It is therefore imperative to do everything that we can to get the service right.
We have always taken great care to ensure that intelligence assessments translate into sensible advice to British travellers and residents overseas.
Mr. Chris Bryant: My right hon. Friend mentioned 675,000 page impressions a month. I suspect that all those are the direct result of people choosing rather than being urged to seek advice when they buy a holiday. That applies especially to buying a holiday online. Millions of people do that through Opodo or directly through the airline. I understand why an airline might not want an automatic rather than a chosen link; information on Bali might read, "Please don't go there." None the less, could the Foreign Secretary push the matter a little further with the Association of British Travel Agents and others, who remain somewhat reluctant about ensuring the availability of the advice?
Mr. Straw: Although I am happy to take up that point, co-operation with ABTA has been good. I have no evidence of travel agents trying to discourage people from seeking advice on the website. It is happily in the nature of the anarchic-cum-democratic internet that people cannot be prevented from gaining access to it.
We have ensured that our website includes links with the equivalent travel advice of several countries. The right hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) made that suggestion, which I was happy to follow up. The original suggestion was to do it with a couple of countries but we have done so with eight or nine. People who are not certain can thus look at other websites.
To return specifically to travel advice, I accept that, at times, our advice has not been as clear, simple and informative as it should be, so in the aftermath of the Bali attack, I asked officials to undertake a comprehensive review of the travel advice system, taking advice from external sources, including the Plain English Campaign and ABTA, from the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Intelligence and Security Committee.
The review also took account of comments made by others—Members of Parliament and the general public, including relatives of those who died in the Bali bombing. I have made myself available to see those relatives who wished to see me, and some of them have been extremely forthcoming in the detailed advice that they have given to us not only about the nature of the travel advice, but about the important improvements to consular assistance that we have put in hand.
614
As a result of the review, we have improved the content and layout of our travel notices. The aim is to ensure that the summaries are short and precise and that there is a specific terrorism paragraph where the situation in a country requires it.
To pick up a point made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Ann Taylor), the report also drew attention to the importance of ensuring that the advice given to British travellers is no different from that we offer to British residents overseas, and I very strongly agree. It has always been our policy to ensure that the advice given to residents and travellers must be entirely consistent. In the aftermath of the Bali attack, we have issued strict instructions to posts to ensure that any information issued locally to British residents—whether by e-mail or otherwise is entirely consistent with the FCO travel advice.
Of course if those in a local post have information that they think is not reflected in the travel advice, they are under a duty not only to use that information to warn local residents through their warning system—these days, it is online using e-mail in most areas—but to get in touch immediately with the relevant department in the Foreign Office, so that that information is properly reflected in the advice that we publish worldwide.
Our provision of travel advice, however good, must be subject to continual improvement. For example, it must be sensible to include a longer section in our travel advice assessing the risks to UK interests, thereby allowing British residents and travellers to make up their own minds, rather than being over-prescriptive. That is an important issue, and it was very striking that, when I made the original statement about the Bali attack on 21 October and, again, when I came to the House to make our initial response to the ISC report on 11 December, different opinions that transcend party loyalties were expressed about how prescriptive, or otherwise, we should be in our travel advice.
Since the Bali attack I have had to pay a lot more attention to the specific nature of advice for specific countries. I shall be interested to know what the view of the House is, but the more that I have to pay attention to travel advice, the more that I have come to the view that the advice ought to tilt towards being just that—advice—and that it should be as accurate as possible and describe the risks but that it should be left to travellers or residents to make their own judgment about whether to go to the country or. if they are in the country, whether to stay there or to leave.
Obviously, there have to be limits on such a permissive arrangement and, if we receive specific intelligence advice about high-level threats, it is our plain duty to tell people to leave. Whether they accept that advice is a matter for them, but we have that duty and, when we have to be much more categorical, my own view is that gradations in the advice about whether people ought to travel may be less effective than simply providing the advice and telling them to look at and make their own decision. I have come to that judgment particularly post-Bali, but also in the light of experiences relating to other countries last year. As I say, I shall be interested to hear what colleagues in the House have to say.

615
We can never achieve perfection. Some will criticise us for being too alarmist; others will always demand that we issue more and more specific warnings. We look forward to advice not only from hon. Members, but members of the public. However, what certainly does not help us—happily this has not been a feature of debates or comments in the House—is for people simply to attack FCO travel advice in a way that undermines people's trust in what has been a popular and much used service, run by staff replete with skills and integrity.
Given the nature and scale of the terrorist threat that we face, we have to recognise that we cannot guarantee that there will not be another attack such as that in Bali. The Government have to prepare for the terrible eventuality that, on any given day, a terrorist attack may claim British lives in any corner of the world. We have learned important lessons from our consular response to the Bali tragedy. As I told Parliament on 21 October, in the immediate aftermath of the attack we failed to get sufficient extra staff on the ground quickly enough. I want to reiterate my apologies for that to the relatives of the victims and to those who were injured.
To ensure that we deliver the most professional response in the event of any future major incidents, I have set up rapid deployment teams, on standby in London, ready to leave for the scene of an emergency anywhere in the world at 24 hours' notice or less. Each team is led by a senior FCO official and combines a mixture of skills and experience. Those teams may find themselves working in the most trying circumstances imaginable, but I am confident that they will live up to the finest traditions of the diplomatic service in delivering the highest level of consular assistance to British nationals.
One of the many sadnesses of having to apologise to the House, to the relatives of victims and to those injured for the fact that our service had fallen below the standard that all of us wanted was that that represented no criticism of any of the staff who were involved in responding in Bali, every one of whom worked phenomenally hard and often at great risk to their own safety in Bali and elsewhere.
Dr. Julian Lewis: I welcome what the Foreign Secretary has just said about the availability of a rapid deployment team in the future. May I point out to him that a prospective Conservative parliamentary candidate in the next election, Mr. Tobias Ellwood, featured prominently in the aftermath of Bali? He and his sister went out there and had to search by themselves, without any significant support whatever, for the body of their brother. Something like that should never have to happen again.
Mr. Straw: I accept that. I have met Mr. Ellwood and his sister, who are very courageous people. I discussed what had happened to them, and this is the first time that I have had any idea of their political affiliations. It was not of remote interest to me—
Dr. Lewis: Mr. Ellwood was selected later.
Mr. Straw:Mr. Ellwood is a free citizen. I would not have minded if he had been selected before. It is entirely a matter for him. I do not think that he would mind me
616
saying that, notwithstanding the terrible grief that he and his family have suffered, he has been extremely helpful in offering us advice on how we should improve the service in the future. Of course, what happened to him, his sister and their parents should never have happened.
Donald Anderson: These terrorist outrages are likely to increase, they may occur in remote parts of countries where we have representation, such as Indonesia, or countries where we have no representation. There is, therefore, a premium on international co-operation. On this occasion, that cooperation was with Australia, and it may occur frequently with our European partners. Will my right hon. Friend say to what extent the question of cooperation, in respect of terrorist outrages, has been addressed at an EU level, and with what result?
Mr. Straw: I agree with my right hon. Friend that these things can happen almost anywhere. The highest level of co-operation is among Commonwealth countries and the United States, and particularly the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the United Kingdom, which, as members of the Intelligence and Security Committee are fully aware, have intelligence sharing arrangements. Co-ordination is extremely good between those countries. Work remains to be done with members of the European Union, and I am happy to write to my right hon. Friend and to his Committee to spell that out in more detail. I accept that there is an important agenda there.
Donald Anderson: To clarify, I refer not just to intelligence sharing but practical co-operation in evacuations, for instance, with Australia, and with the EU in countries where we may have no representation but where France, or another country, may have representation.
Mr. Straw: My answer was referring to both. We have to improve co-ordination. I have no doubt that, if an atrocity occurred in a country where we had no, or limited, representation, but where one of our EU partners had good representation, that partner would respond extremely effectively. However, it is better to have standing arrangements.
One reason why, immediately after the atrocity, we thought that our arrangements in Bali were likely to be adequate was that our arrangements in New York had turned out to be more than adequate. Appalling though that atrocity was, it was fortuitous that only a mile or so from the twin towers we had 200 British diplomats, whose families were available. Most of the British victims were not tourists but were resident in New York and had a support base. We have learned that every terrorist atrocity is likely to be different. We have to be ready to respond to the widest possible range of atrocity.
To pick up on my right hon. Friend's point, the Committee's report on intelligence assessments prior to the Bali bombing cut to the heart of a problem that the Government have had to confront every day since 11 September 2001. There is a huge and growing volume of intelligence on terrorist-related activity. In responding to such material, officials and Ministers alike have to strike the right balance between providing

617
the public with adequate warning of threats and not causing undue panic. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in his speech to the lord mayor's banquet last year:
"if, on the basis of a general warning, we were to shut down all the places that al-Qaeda might be considering for attack, we would be doing their job for them. The dilemma is reconciling warning people without alarming them; taking preventative measures without destroying normal life."
We will continue to do our best to strike that balance properly. We will do our utmost to ensure that the British public can go about their daily lives free from the threat of indiscriminate attack. We will work relentlessly to ensure that the prevailing climate for our citizens at home and overseas is one of freedom, not fear.
5.37 pm
Mr. Richard Spring: Only last week, the remains of a number of the victims of the atrocity in Bali were returned to Britain. It brought home to us, once again, the full horror of the events of October last year. The victims of the bombing came from many countries all over the world. They included 24 Britons. Australians, in particular, suffered an especially grievous loss. The victims were largely young people enjoying an evening out in a nightclub.
I have been to Bali on a number of occasions. The island is known for its beauty, its unique culture, its tranquillity and its warm welcome; for those reasons, it acts as a magnet for young people who are seeking to relax and explore the world.
I warmly thank the right hon. Member for Dewsbury (Ann Taylor) and all the members of her Committee for the quality of their important report and the speed with which it was produced. I thank the Foreign Secretary for acceding to the request of my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram), the shadow Foreign Secretary, that time be found for this debate. My right hon. Friend apologises to the House for his absence today. He has asked me to thank the Foreign Secretary for the positive manner with which he responded to his suggestions in the wake of the attack. I know that hon. Members on both sides of the House are united in trying to deal with the implications of this terrorist act. The House meets in that spirit today.
The terrorist bombing in Bali on 12 October 2002 was a heinous crime. Once again, I extend our deepest condolences to the families and friends of the innocent victims of that crime; and I am especially grateful to the Foreign Secretary for referring to Tobias Ellwood and his family.
This report investigates what lessons might be learned, whether errors were made, and whether the attack and loss of life might have been prevented had errors not been made. It also investigates what might be done in future to make Foreign and Commonwealth Office travel advice more accurately reflect the threat. As the Foreign Secretary has said, the report grew out of the fact that it is important that relatives do not have
"nagging anxieties about whether different judgments should have been made."—[Official Report, 21 October 2002; Vol. 391, c. 23.]
618
It grew also from the obligations on Governments to ensure that all procedures were "thoroughly examined", as the Australian Prime Minister, John Howard, has commented.
The Bali attack left unanswered serious questions relating to the intelligence dissemination system and to FCO travel advice. That has important implications for us all in an age when more and more of us holiday abroad and when the gap year abroad has become part of the culture for many of our sons and daughters. The report covers a number of key questions, following through from the collection of intelligence material to the travel advice displayed on the FCO website. It asks whether intelligence collection in Indonesia was given priority, whether any specific intelligence was overlooked, whether the security services adequately assessed the levels of threat, whether the system of levels was adequate and whether the assessment was reflected in the FCO travel advice. I praise the often dangerous, and more usually unsung, work carried out by members of our security services and our diplomats overseas. I am pleased that the report agrees, noting that
"sufficient priority was given to the collection of intelligence".
The changed international scene after the attack on the twin towers and, indeed, since the end of the cold war has placed a far greater burden on the security services in many ways. Intelligence has assumed far greater importance in tackling unseen threats, and we welcome the Government's decision to increase resources for the intelligence agencies.
I was particularly interested when, last week, Sir John Stevens, the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis, indicated changed attitudes in police thinking and suggested that the visible presence of the police was important not simply as reassurance, but as efficacious in preventing and detecting crimes. We all recall that, in the 1990s, we were told that CCTV and electronic surveillance were perhaps an increasingly appropriate way to tackle crime. However, we now know that that is certainly not the case and that the human element remains invaluable.
At the end of the cold war, there were question marks about what the function of the security services should be. The old ideological battles were in the past and we looked to the future. However, as with the police in the 1990s, we saw an emphasis on spy satellites and other electronic surveillance to fulfil the intelligence gathering role. As my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Sussex (Mr. Soames) has pointed out on many occasions in the House, although such means are highly valuable, we now know from the rise of al-Qaeda and many other terrorist groups that the human element remains hugely important in intelligence gathering.
Of course, it takes time to develop human networks, but the one lesson of 11 September, Bali and other outrages is that that simply must be done. I am sure that the Foreign Secretary will agree, for example, that much of the success that our security services had in dealing with the threats in Northern Ireland came about as a result of the infiltration of paramilitary groups. I hope that, in the winding-up speech, the Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety will be able to confirm that he shares our assessment of the importance of human intelligence and will reassure the House that that receives due emphasis in Government priorities.

619
The report also notes that no specific intelligence of a specific threat in Bali was found by the security services. What is clear from the attacks in New York, Mombasa and Bali is the absolute need for co-operation worldwide. The Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee has just made that point. The confusion over what the United States knew or what Australia may have known demonstrates that, although we share intelligence, we must also be willing to re-examine whether it is shared in the most efficient and effective way.
Post the cold war, the threat of terrorism—the unseen enemy—poses many challenges, not least in our society, as between protecting citizens from attack and protecting their civil rights. Each and every democratic country has to face that dilemma.
The picture is not one of total gloom. There have been two extremely welcome breakthroughs in trying to reconcile terrorist groups with legitimate Governments. After many years of murder and mayhem in Sri Lanka, it is very good that productive dialogue is now taking place. Two weeks ago, I was in Nepal. The Foreign Secretary will know that, after many thousands of deaths, the Maoist guerrillas are in dialogue with the Nepalese Government. The consequences of the conflict in human terms have been tragic, but all hon. Members can take pride in the role that the different arms of the British Government have played directly and indirectly in helping to build trust and dialogue in Nepal. I hope that many lives can be saved in the future.
Donald Anderson: Will the hon. Gentleman also pay tribute to another example of practical co-operation, namely that between the British Government and the Greek Government following the appalling murder of Brigadier Saunders in Athens? It is significant that as a result of that excellent co-operation the trial of individuals for that murder starts today.
Mr. Spring: The House is grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for making that point, and of course we all agree that such co-operation, leading to events such as today's trial, is most welcome.
There is of course the question of how raw intelligence is assessed once it has been gathered. Paragraph 43 of the report notes that in the period in question 150 reports which related to terrorist activity were received each day, and that represents a problem for analysis. The development of the counter-terrorism analysis centre is welcome, and hopefully it is providing a focal point for the co-ordination of intelligence that can be fed into the decision-making process. I am sure that in his winding-up speech my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) will want to return to that aspect of the report.
The function of such a centre must be to facilitate the rapid digestion and analysis of raw information to feed it down the chain to the point at which it is available to the travelling public. However, there is a risk of what has been termed warning fatigue, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Mr. Mackay) raised in the House in October. I think that the right hon. Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson) was also making that point. As the Foreign Secretary will agree, many young people seek adventure and consider
620
themselves virtually indestructible. Hence a balance must be struck between the provision of adequate warnings and the ratcheting up of all the threat assessments to such a degree that many people will simply comprehensively ignore them.
One of the key points at the time of the bombing was the question of why the threat level was not raised from significant to high. The report suggested that the level of "significant" recognised the security services' assessment, but it seems to suggest that the threat grading system is not as sensitive as it needs to be. Given the apparent information about a number of islands in Indonesia, and the attacks on American diplomatic property shortly beforehand, a higher threat level would, with hindsight, have appeared more appropriate.
My right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary has often called for the system to be looked at and a more sensitive graded system to be put in place, and the Committee says that the system needs modifications, but in the Government's response I see only a reference to the security services' review, which aims to give greater definition. That is welcome, and the Foreign Secretary referred to the matter, but further clarification could be given by the Minister who winds up the debate.
Finally, there is the question of the way the assessments become the FCO travel advice used by hundreds of thousands of people through the FCO website. The report recognises at paragraph 18 that the FCO advice did not properly recognise the threat in Bali but was proportional to the current assessments by the security services. I welcome the review of the travel advice system and its mechanisms, as noted at paragraph 13 of the Government's response.
Consistency is central. There must be confidence in FCO advice, and that comes from consistency with allies. In that respect I thank the Foreign Secretary for his response to a letter from my right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes in December, in which my right hon. Friend suggested that the FCO website should carry links to the travel advice pages of other key allies, such as the United States and Australia. The Foreign Secretary wrote again this year saying that he had accepted and implemented the suggestion.
Such links do not detract from the need for our travel advice to reflect the information on the websites of other countries, assuming that it does not relate to specific threats to nationals from those countries. Are there FCO staff dedicated to daily monitoring and investigation of differences in advice and to pursuing the matter through diplomatic and intelligence links to see whether there is something that we should be taking greater account of?
It is also important, as the Government response notes, that advice issued to holiday makers be consistent with that given to Britons living abroad. The warden system plays a big role in that. Noting that once again a balance has to be struck between the need for intelligence information to be translated into advice as rapidly as possible and for that information adequately to be analysed and cross-referenced, what procedures are in place to ensure consistency of travel advice between us and our allies?
I have one or two remaining questions to pose in the hope that the Minister will address them. What assessments have the Government made of the impact

621
that travel advice from the FCO has on the validity of travel insurance claims for cancelled holidays? If such an atrocity were to occur again, and heaven forbid that it should, what steps are in place for a dedicated rapid response team, perhaps based at a suitably large regional posting, to be on the scene within hours to assist relatives and local authorities? From what the Foreign Secretary said, I understand that a team is based in London. Is it exclusively in London or can it be based elsewhere?
Mr. Straw:A number of teams are based in London and they are ready to draw on people worldwide. That is what happened in Bali. When the response was ratcheted up to the right level, people were drawn from Singapore, Bangkok and Australian posts. That was coordinated from London, where the core team was based. If we had another Bali, we would not wait for the planes to leave Heathrow. We would put teams in place very quickly from the region and supplement them with people as soon as we could get them out there.
Mr. Spring: I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for that clarification. On the basis of our experience, I know he agrees that that is an important point. The consular staff from Bali and Jakarta worked tirelessly. We have all learned lessons from the incident and I hope that we have resolved the problem.
The scars of the horrendous bombing of Bali remain. It was an horrific crime. I very much hope that our deliberations, and the contents of the excellent report, will go some way to preventing future attacks or, at the very least, future loss of life on such a scale by timely intelligence and warnings.
5.52 pm
Ann Taylor: I thank the Foreign Secretary and the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) for their comments and recognition of the Committee's work. I also thank members of the Committee, who spent many hours on the report and the large amount of other work that occupied us for many months. I cannot say that we enjoyed that aspect of our work because of the context in which we undertook the inquiry, but we all think that it was worth while, especially as many of our comments have been taken on board and have helped to move on the discussion and some of the issues. Today we are discussing what lessons can be learned to prevent such a tragedy from happening again elsewhere. However, we all have to remember the people who were killed or injured in Bali and their families. On behalf of the Committee, I reiterate our expression of sympathy to them all. I hope that the report sheds light on the processes and on what happened in Bali, and that it is helpful.
The Committee's work gave us a detailed insight into the workings of the agencies. We visit the agencies and have a great deal of contact with them, but having all the evidence before us and examining one issue in great depth was useful in giving us a general oversight of them while we considered the specific problem. It also clearly demonstrated the link between the agencies' work and
622
the public policy decisions that have to be taken later, such as travel advice. That is not always the case with our work.
The Foreign Secretary said that he agreed at the outset that the Committee would have full access to all relevant intelligence. That approach is typical of my right hon. Friend, who tends to tackle problems head on rather than by moving them to one side. The full access to intelligence was essential for us to have confidence that we were doing our job properly. We are glad and grateful to him for that intelligence, just as we appreciate that it was necessary for us to have the full co-operation of the agencies involved and Ministers.
On the report and the Government's response, our inquiry focused on the six main questions that we outline in paragraph 6, as the hon. Member for West Suffolk said. The first question was whether terrorism in Indonesia was a sufficiently high intelligence collection priority. We concluded, partly on the basis of our previous work and annual reports, that sufficient priority had been given to that task, although we put that in a particular context:
"The Committee believes that sufficient priority was given to the collection of intelligence, although we repeat the comments in our last Annual Report that the Agencies are still growing following the increased funding they received after the 11 September attacks and it takes time for the additional resources to be deployed to maximum effect."
The implication is that the reduction in the agencies' funding in the 1990s and the lack of long-term investment curtailed their ability to respond later. That was not helpful.
Our second question was whether intelligence had been overlooked. My right hon. Friend quoted the report on that. It said:
"We conclude that on the available intelligence there was no action that the UK or its allies could have taken to prevent the attacks."
We are clear about that. As my right hon. Friend said, it is important for the families to know that it was not a simple matter of information being available that pointed directly to an attack in Bali which could have been foreseen on that day. It is important to stress that.
Our third and fourth questions related to threat assessment: was the correct assessment made and is the current threat assessment system effective and adequate? We thought that there were difficulties with that, some of which were mentioned by my right hon. Friend and the hon. Member for West Suffolk. We concluded that there was a serious misjudgment. As a result, the Security Service did not assess the threat correctly and did not raise the level of threat to high. We are clear about that. Some think that that judgment is too harsh, as my right hon. Friend said, but we did not choose our words lightly. We thought long and hard before concluding that a serious misjudgment had been made. On behalf of the Committee, I can say that we stick by our conclusion. Problems did exist with the way in which the assessment was made.
The Committee looked at all this evidence from a slightly different angle from that of those who look at it on a daily basis. On one day, we had all the relevant pieces of intelligence on the matter brought together so that we could go through them sequentially. The available intelligence did not come to us in dribs and

623
drabs over a period of weeks, as it does for people working in the agencies. There were, and indeed are, lots of reports about this matter and others coming daily to the Security Service. When we took evidence, we were told that there are about 150 such reports daily, and Indonesia is only one part of that wide reporting. There has been no diminution in the number of reports coming in, or in the amount of work, particularly in assessment, that the agencies must do.
When we looked at all the relevant reports, we could assess their nature and the way in which they varied. Some were sparse in detail; some were dull; some could be interpreted in different ways; some were repetitive; some may have given deliberate misinformation. Others, however, clearly had some relevance, and the Committee concluded that there was sufficient information to upgrade the threat assessment, thereby triggering a new assessment of what warnings were necessary. It is important that people understand the way in which the system works. We saw the individual jigsaw pieces, perhaps only fragments of those pieces, that are seen daily by people in the Security Service. No one had the full picture. Indeed, there is probably no single picture, because terrorist groups operate in a network of moving alliances. They do not present one picture which, if you get it, enables you to crack the situation so that all can be revealed. There is probably a multidimensional changing picture, and individuals come and go, and rise and fall. Different groups vie for influences, change their ideas and tactics, and so on. That has to be understood if we are to have a feel for the way in which the services work. The Committee is willing to acknowledge the difficulties and pressures on Security Service staff. Theirs is not an easy task, and they are dedicated professionals. Nevertheless, we concluded, not that the events in Bali could have been prevented, but that the threat assessment level should have been raised.
That brings me to the next point in that part of the report—was the threat assessment system effective and adequate? Perhaps the threat level was not raised because the system was not geared up to make distinctions that should have been made and which must be made in future. In our report we published for the first time the way in which the threat assessment system worked. In paragraph 9, we set out clearly the hierarchy of six gradations, ranging from negligible to imminent. We concluded that the threat assessment system
"does not provide sufficiently clear, differentiated definitions of the threat level."
We suggested that there should be at least one more level between "significant" and "high" to assist users of that information such as the Foreign Office, which uses it for travel advice, and other Departments that rely on it. In their response, the Government accepted that work needed to be done on that. It has already started, and threat assessment definitions have been reworked with the intention of avoiding the problems of the old system. The Intelligence and Security Committee has been briefed on the matter, and we welcome the fact that things are moving in that direction, because they will be of benefit to everybody involved. We hope that the formation of the Joint Terrorism Analysis Centre, or JTAC—one of the problems in this area is all the initials—will lead to improved co-ordination and co-operation, and ensure that reports are issued in a timely
624
way. However, I would echo the comment of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary that the levels of cooperation between different agencies are extremely impressive in this country, and much better than those that I have seen elsewhere. I must tell my right hon. Friend that the changes that he and his colleagues have proposed are welcome, but the ISC will want to monitor them carefully as part of its ongoing work.
Turning briefly to the other main issue in our report—questions about Foreign Office travel advice—our inquiry asked:
"Did the FCO Travel Advice accurately reflect the Security Service assessment?",
and:
"Is this advice effectively communicated to the public and the travel industry?"
The Government's response is interesting, because it highlights part of the problem. Paragraph 7 of the response, as was said earlier, reads:
"In the period preceding the Bali bombings the Service assessed the threat level to general UK interests in Indonesia to be SIGNIFICANT. This meant that the security climate was judged to be such that UK general interests were likely to be a priority target of terrorist activity."
However, anyone who read the Foreign Office travel advice at the time would not necessarily draw the same clear conclusions. The tone and clarity of the Government's statement are very different indeed from the tone and nature of the travel advice that was published before the Bali bombing. The travel advice put out by the Foreign Office before 12 October said:
"Most visits to Indonesia are trouble free. However, particular care is needed for visits to some regions and others should be avoided altogether as specified below."
Bali was not on that list. On Bali itself, the travel advice concentrated on crime, and said:
"Crime in Bali and Lombok remains relatively low but relatives and tourists alike should take the same precautions as they would in any major city."
The tone of the travel advice was problematic. While the general travel advice to tourists was couched in a reassuring tone, other travel advice was not. The Foreign Office travel advice was not revised after the grenade attack in Jakarta on 23 September. However, an e-mail service provided to subscribers resident in Indonesia revised its advice. New advice was sent to residents outlining what had happened in Jakarta and suggesting that UK citizens should be more circumspect. We were not quite sure what "circumspect" should mean, but there was advice to be more careful.
A further e-mail was sent out to subscribers that was not reflected in the Foreign Office travel advice or on the Foreign Office general website. However, it was sent out to subscribers in Indonesia, stating:
"In the run-up to the fasting month, which starts around 5 November, activists are more likely to show their disapproval at many of the bars and nightclubs that are popular with Indonesians and foreigners, especially on Friday nights. British citizens should avoid these establishments."
That information was provided only in the e-mail service to those British citizens who subscribed in Indonesia. It was not part of general advice. I think that we were right to say that there is a problem with travel advice and that Foreign Office travel advice—its

625
purpose, its target audience and its presentation—needed to be examined by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office as a matter of urgency.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has told us that that is exactly what is happening. I am pleased that the FCO has been able to respond so quickly. I acknowledge that there are problems, including warning fatigue and giving warnings without being alarmist. However, the changes that have been made to travel advice should bring about an improvement. It is not for the ISC to follow up this issue. I am sure that members of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee will want to keep an eye on what is happening.
Alan Howarth: This is not intended to be a flippant point because we are discussing desperately serious matters. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the word processor is, in a way, part of the difficulty? We found that the same phrases and the same paragraphs were repeated and recycled in successive issues of travel advice over a long period. Is it not important, especially when, rightly, the Foreign Office is seeking to keep travel advice low key and unsensational, that those who draft it regularly should revisit the prose and refresh and renew it? Otherwise, those who read it may take a glance and say, "It's the same as before and there is nothing significant for us to take note of."
Ann Taylor: I have completely to agree with my right hon. Friend that that sort of approach and attitude is part of the problem. It may also be part of the solution, in that it is easier to make changes quickly. E-mails make it easier to get out information to travel agents, for example. Occasionally we need people who have not been working with these problems and issues, day in and day out, to be involved. We need people who can step back from the generality of knowledge of the experts so that they can say what hits them from any block of information. Sometimes, when people are living too close to an issue day in and day out, they find it difficult to understand how someone outside might find information too reassuring or too alarming. That is one of the aspects that must be taken into account.
I am glad that the Government have found time for the debate. I hope that the report and the fact that we are having the debate show that the relevant agencies are accountable to Parliament through the ISC, and that the ISC performs a useful role. I am pleased that the Government have responded quickly. It is a tragic situation, but some positive things are coming out of it in terms of the changes to the threat assessment system, the improvement of co-ordination through JTAC, and the altering of the style and quality of Foreign Office travel advice. I know that that will be no real consolation to the relatives of those who died or who were injured, but I hope that these improvements will play some part in helping us all to protect people further in future. I am grateful to the Government for taking on board so many of our recommendations.
6.15 pm
Mr. A. J. Beith: I am glad to follow the right hon. Member for Dewsbury (Ann Taylor), the Chairman of the Committee, and to
626
have had the privilege of working closely with her and the rest of my colleagues on the Committee on this matter. I do so by way of a surprising guest reappearance on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench. I am deputising for my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell). However, I will be reflecting on my experience as a member of the Committee. My right hon. and hon. Friends have welcomed the report and some of the things that have followed from it.
It was a terrible incident when nearly 200 holidaymakers were killed. Most of them were young people, 24 of them were British and many more were Australian. A couple of weeks later, the members of the Committee were in Australia. We saw there what a dramatic effect the tragedy had had on the entire Australian community, and on Australians of every racial and ethnic background. There was an outpouring of grief and a sense of shock. Perhaps that came almost as a surprise to us because we have become casehardened in Britain by our experience of IRA terrorism. However, the incident had a profound impact in Australia. A recent service in Southwark cathedral commemorated the British victims of the tragedy. The Foreign Secretary, who attended, has referred to it.
We saw the fundamental evil of terrorism. It is not the loss of innocent life as an unintended consequence of the pursuit of a military target. It is, as we saw with IRA terrorism, the deliberate slaughter of people who are not involved in the military or political actions and decisions that terrorists are seeking to challenge. It is the most cowardly form of warfare.
There are many arguments about when there can be a just war. Indeed, many of us are engaged presently in those very arguments about when there can be a just use of military or violent means. Terrorism is the antithesis of a just war. It has no possible moral basis.
My right hon. and hon. Friends welcome the report. We welcome also the fact that the Foreign Secretary so readily ensured that all the intelligence evidence was available to the Committee. That is essential for a judgment to be made on behalf of colleagues in the House who cannot see the evidence. The fact that it is in part a critical judgment may be discomforting to the Government and the agencies, but it serves as a vindication of the process of democratic scrutiny of intelligence and security services. That is an essential process and one that needs to be exercised in this way.
It is important to recognise that the Committee concluded that there was no intelligence of a specific threat to nightclubs in Bali, and therefore no basis on which action could have been taken to prevent the attack or even to mount an emergency evacuation of western tourists from the island. Although Bali was covered, like many other places, by a significant threat level, it was generally regarded as a relatively safe location for tourism because its population is predominantly Hindu. Therefore, it was felt that it was unlikely to be involved in Islamic anti-western demonstrations or activities. By contrast, some Indonesian islands were regarded as very unsafe places, and more recent events have demonstrated that that was correct.
There was, however, increasing intelligence of Jemaah Islamiyah links to al-Qaeda and the potential development by that and other groups of local

627
terrorism. There were threats to US and UK interests, including tourists in nightclubs, which were reported. The right hon. Member for Dewsbury referred to them. There was an attack on a US diplomatic residence on 23 September. Indonesia was known to have less than effective anti-terrorist policing, to put it mildly. There was no reliable basis for supposing that the risks were confined to Jakarta and would never extend to Bali.
That brings me to the crucial failure that led to what the Committee called a "serious misjudgement". It was the failure to ask the question that I put to the Foreign Secretary earlier. Where in Indonesia is there a concentration of tourists vulnerable to attack where many people can be killed in one operation? There is only one answer to that question, and it is Bali.
The threat that we are talking about was not primarily one to tourists who are not concentrated. It is not primarily a threat to hill walkers, scuba divers, surfers or independent travellers. It was the threat represented by the vulnerability of a large number of tourists—almost entirely western tourists—packed in one vulnerable Location or a few vulnerable locations.
Mass tourism to Bali has nightclubs or discos as one of its principal attractions. That is what most tourists go to Bali to enjoy for at least part of the time that they spend there. Advice to
"be circumspect … especially in the evenings"
is meaningless in that context. It is relevant advice to a business man who lives in the country and can alter his pattern of movements and look out for potential threats and dangers. It is not meaningful advice to people who are going to a place on the assumption that it is relatively safe for them to go there.
We know that nightclubs are vulnerable places, even without terrorism. If we add up the number killed in fires or other emergencies in nightclubs in the past few years in Chicago, Caracas, Vollendam, Durban, Gothenburg, Manila and two cases in China, it comes to almost 900 lives lost. Like crowded shopping centres, nightclubs are an attractive target for terrorists, particularly when they are known to attract only or primarily foreign visitors.
Perhaps it is the Foreign Office that should have been alert to the precise nature of Bali tourism, rather than the Security Service, whose focus was on the terrorists themselves. That brings me to the system failure. If the Security Service assessment had been raised to the next level, that would have triggered a review of the Foreign Office advice, as the Foreign Secretary agreed in an earlier exchange. But it was not raised, so the process was not initiated. That is one reason why we recommended a level of advice between "significant" and "high".
In any case, the Foreign Office should be conscious of the nature of the travel and tourism to which its advice relates. There is a world of difference between advising UK residents working in a dangerous country on how to minimise risks to their safety, and advising people whether they should go to a dangerous place if they intend to spend much of their time there in a crowded disco, which is a location vulnerable to terrorism.
628
Mention has been made of the difference between the advice on the website and the general travel advice. The Government's response relates to this and states:
"The FCO has also issued strict instruction to Posts to ensure that any wording issued locally, whether by e-mail or otherwise, is entirely consistent with the FCO Travel Advice."
When I read that, I thought that it was the wrong way round. If the advice is not consistent, the message ought to be that the people locally, at the post, seem to know something that has not got through into the general travel advice being issued in London. I am glad the Foreign Secretary amplified that slightly puzzling statement to indicate that it means that if there is a difference, the local post should not take out the advice that there is a new danger; it should get on to London and report what it is advising, so that that can be reflected in the general travel advice. I am grateful for the Foreign Secretary's clarification.
We believe that an error was made, but it must be set in context. First, the agencies had obtained valuable intelligence in a difficult situation, in a part of the world in which they did not have substantial resources because it had not been of the highest priority in earlier years. As we said, it takes time for new resources to work through. The agencies did their job, and in all other respects, they did it remarkably well in difficult circumstances. We have seen the raw evidence of that. The "serious misjudgement" to which we referred was, I think, a gap in lateral thinking—a gap in making good and imaginative use of the information that they had striven to obtain and draw to the attention of those who needed to know about it.
Secondly, as regards context, although for reasons that I have set out Bali had become a dangerous place to be in a nightclub, there are many dangerous places. London is a dangerous place and the House is a dangerous place, although in both cases, the terrorist faces much better anti-terrorist measures than he did in Indonesia. But it only takes one to get through. We saw the consequences of that with the IRA mainland bombs. The twin towers were a dangerous place on 11 September. The Pentagon, of all places, was a dangerous place. As the Prime Minister said, we do not intend to close down the world and its activities and thus hand victory to the terrorists.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) pointed out, we are discussing how we manage risks. We need good advice on the basis of which to make prudent judgments—often, judgments as individuals about what risks we are willing to take. The advice should be as good as it can be. I do not think, and I believe that most of my colleagues on the Committee agree with me, that we want to go down the road of the United States' style of travel advice, which indicates a wide degree of threat and to some extent reinforces American citizens in their feeling that the world is not a safe place in which to travel. That must he seen in the light of 11 September, which demonstrated that key locations in the United States were exposed to serious danger as well.
I fear that the US approach to travel advice is influenced by the litigation and compensation culture, and the feeling that public bodies must guard against being shown to have been wrong and thus exposed to compensation claims. They therefore overstate or at least maximise the case in a sort of Health and Safety

629
Executive way, if I can put it that way. The result can often be advice that, if taken literally, would mean that one would not go anywhere or even stay where one was. We must recognise that we are dealing with how we cope with risks in the world. Good advice is the basis for individuals to make their own sensible judgments about that.
I welcome the fact that a number of new elements have been introduced, which have been mentioned in the debate. The joint terrorism analysis centre draws together expertise in a way that should prove a more effective vehicle. Better definition of threat levels, if it is achieved, will be welcome. Some restructuring of travel advice has also been referred to. All those measures are welcome.
Bali may well not be the last terrible terrorist atrocity that we have to debate in the House. We do not know where the next one will be, but I hope and believe that some lessons have been learned, not only about the handling of tragedies—the Foreign Secretary spoke about how help can be brought to those affected—but about how the best travel advice can be obtained, and how intelligence can be brought to bear most effectively for prevention, where that is possible, as it was not in the case of Bali, for guidance to tourists and travellers, and for wisdom in the management of the risks. It has been a terrible experience for the families involved, and a salutary one for the agencies that deal with such circumstances. In making a significant criticism, we also recognise the immense value of the work that they have been doing and the many lives that have been saved by it.
6.27 pm
Donald Anderson: I apologise to the House for perhaps having to leave before the anticipated end of the debate for a constituency-related matter.
The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) made a number of cogent points, particularly in relation to what he called the failure of lateral thinking and the misjudgments made by the services. To put that in context, one must recognise what the Foreign Secretary said—that hindsight is a wonderful device for 20:20 vision—and the comment of my right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Ann Taylor) that the task involves joining up dots in intelligence, often in a multidimensional situation where there are enormous difficulties and where one can easily get it wrong.
I will not follow the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed in another respect. Perhaps because he is a member of the Committee, he was rather coy about blowing the trumpet of his own Committee. On behalf of the House, may I say that the Intelligence and Security Committee has done a grand job? My right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury has acquitted herself and the Committee extremely well. I am mightily impressed with the speed of the Committee's response. The House will recall that the outrage in Bali occurred on 12 October. On 21 October, the matter was referred to the Committee by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. The report was published on 11 December, which suggests very fast Committee work. The Government's response was made last month. All the key questions were asked by the
630
Committee, and the criticism relates to tone and the emphasis that was made in very difficult circumstances. Clearly, the terrorism threat is real throughout the world. We aware that in Indonesia, for example, the US, which had access to the same intelligence as us, had several members of its Jakarta embassy in Bali at the time. The scale of the threat as seen through US official eyes was not all that great.
I shall not concentrate on the intelligence aspects of the situation. Even though the Foreign Affairs Committee requested the information, we were not given access to the intelligence side, but travel advice generally is four-square in our remit. Indeed, the Committee has taken that responsibility very seriously. It recognises that a core responsibility of the Government, and hence one of its own core responsibilities in scrutinising them, is the safety of British personnel overseas. As I mentioned, that includes not only tourists, but personnel in our embassies. I also said earlier that, as a result of excellent co-operation between our intelligence services and the Greek intelligence services, we hope that all key members of the 11 November terrorist group in Greece who were responsible for the murder of our defence attaché, Brigadier Saunders, have now been apprehended. That trial starts today. It is to British tourists, a vast number of whom can now travel overseas, that the ISC report is especially pertinent.
The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has learned a number of lessons from Bali. In the judgment of the Foreign Affairs Committee, it is taking its work extremely seriously. We referred to the problems that have arisen in our report on the annual report of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and on 4 February we had a serious discussion in public session with Sir Michael Jay, the permanent secretary of the Foreign Office. I hope that we are not a mutual admiration society. The Foreign Office has certainly faced the sting of the Committee's criticism in a number of inquiries, not least in respect of Sierra Leone in the previous Parliament and of Gibraltar in the current one.
I believe that we have worked together particularly closely in respect of Bali. We received today a letter of commendation from the permanent secretary on our work. I reciprocate to this extent: we are pleased that, partly in response to our recommendations and those of the ISC, the Foreign Office has recognised that travel advice needs a higher profile. It has revised all the 209 travel advisory notices on its website and responded to the comments made by both Committees about the fact that travel advice should be more user-friendly and understandable. It has worked with the Plain English Campaign and is open to constructive comments from us and the general public on how travel advice can be improved.
The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, among others, has referred to the need to ensure that advice given on the spot is consistent with advice given in London. Hence, a new mechanism has been agreed whereby if a post wants to change advice, the information can come straight back through the geographical department in London. That means that any relevant changes should pass very quickly through the travel advisory unit and on to the website. The FCO website also has a new icon on the risk of terrorism when travelling abroad and lists the countries where terrorist attacks have occurred.

631
When the Foreign Affairs Committee prepared for its meeting with Sir Michael Jay, we carried out a comparative survey of the advice given by several countries to their nationals. We looked at the website of the US State Department, the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Australian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Canadian Ministry of Foreign Affairs in respect of one country—Saudi Arabia. We concluded that the FCO website compared very well indeed with those of other countries. Of course, it is important that, as the result of advice that came in part from the Opposition Front Bench, the FCO has created a link between its website and those of other countries.
The problem is how to respond constructively and realistically when intelligence is received about an impending terrorist attack, because of the volume and varied nature of the pieces of information that are received daily. If there is a serious threat, the FCO has to make the best judgment on the basis of the available information. The Committee was interested to learn in its evidence session with Sir Michael Jay that Ministers are consulted daily on changes to travel advice.
We also recognised the sensitivities regarding friendly countries when advice is received that can impact adversely on their economies. Two recent examples have arisen in that regard. First, the Government changed their advice in respect of Mauritius in November last year because the US embassy had received specific warnings about possible attacks on churches or other public places there and had posted a local warning to its nationals. Our high commission in Port Louis took the warning seriously. On 19 November, the Mauritius Foreign Minister wrote to the Foreign Secretary expressing concern that Mauritius had been placed among risky tourist destinations.
Secondly, a similar complaint was received from Trinidad and Tobago about what had happened as a result of intelligence information received in relation to a terrorist threat. In January or early February, the Trinidad Foreign Secretary was sent to London for urgent consultations with our Foreign Office because various tourist liners had been diverted as a result of the warning that we had issued. Quite properly, the permanent secretary told the Committee that the paramount duty of the Foreign Office is to our citizens. Although there may be occasions when quiet discussions should take place with friendly countries, that must be subordinate in any situation to the interests of British nationals.
The events in Bali also led to wider and more welcome changes in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The Foreign Affairs Committee raised in our comments on the FCO annual report the question of the rapid response unit, which is potentially a very important development. We recommended
"that the Government, in its response to this Report, should set out what progress has been made in expediting the FCO's response time to the need to establish new diplomatic premises overseas, with particular reference to the use of containers".
That recommendation related to transportable diplomatic premises. We also recommended that there should be
"a register of former diplomatic staff … to respond to crises".
632
The Foreign Office responded to that recommendation on 29 January. In respect of rapid deployment teams, in our report on the 2002 FCO annual report the Committee recommended that
"the next Annual report should report progress on the development of systems for responding to international crises and for the rapid deployment of serving or retired diplomatic, consular or other personnel in response to changing circumstances worldwide."
In its 29 January response, the Foreign Office informed us that it had
"set up three Rapid Deployment Teams that can be despatched to support Posts when a major consular crisis occurs. These teams are on 24 hours stand-by in rotation. Each Rapid Deployment Team is led by a senior Diplomatic Service officer".
As a result of Bali, welcome changes have been made. The 24-hour "situation centre" will become effective in the summer, and the Foreign Office is looking at the outsourcing of caller answering services. Only today, on behalf of the Committee, I received a letter from the permanent under-secretary saying that the Foreign Office was considering establishing web-based databases
"to allow the call-centre staff to input simple details".
That will enable a more speedy and effective response to be made.
There is a continuing dialogue between the Foreign Office and the Foreign Affairs Committee on this important issue. We asked, for instance, why there were no medical advisers on the rapid deployment teams, and the Foreign Office gave us an interim reply. I assure the House that we take our responsibility for scrutinising the Foreign Office's oversight of the concerns of British nationals overseas very seriously. We are united in trying to counter, as best we can, the scourge of terrorism, and seeking to improve the position of those British nationals.
6.42 pm
Patrick Mercer: I welcome this excellent report, and it is a privilege to follow the right hon. Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson). I appreciate that I am in august company tonight, and I hope that my comments will not be considered out of order in any way; but I hope to cite the events in Bali as part of a series of events from which we can learn. Perhaps they can point to how we can cope in future with a threat that I believe will become much more dangerous as we approach what I feel must be an inevitable war with Iraq.
I shall return to the subject of Bali from time to time, but let me say first that the security services are doing a first-class job. Only their efficacy, I think, has prevented worse atrocities abroad, involving British possessions abroad, or indeed in this country. The news that a joint terrorist assessment centre is to be established is very good. That can only lead to further excellent handling and dissemination of intelligence.
Let me get two old aphorisms out of the way immediately. The first is that the terrorist needs to get lucky only once; the second is that the terrorist's aim is to terrify—not necessarily to destroy, not necessarily to kill and not necessarily to defeat, but simply to terrify. It is Government's job to keep that in proportion, and to learn how to control the perception of terrorism among the victim population.

633
I want to compare the ways in which four societies handle terrorism. Two of them are similar, two dissimilar. First and foremost, there is Israel. Whether we approve of what is going on there is a separate matter, but the fact remains that every single Israeli has, directly or indirectly, been touched by what is regrettably an extremely effective terrorist regime. Yet Israel is not on her knees: life in Israel goes on relatively normally, as normally as it can under a threat of this kind.
Mr. James Arbuthnot: As my hon. Friend no doubt knows, Israel does not issue threat assessments to the general public. Interestingly, it leaves its citizens to make their own assessment of how dangerous it is to go to another country.
Patrick Mercer: I thank my hon. Friend for enlightening us on that point.
My second example is Ulster, where I have carried out nine operational tours working in both the intelligence and the uniformed staff. That too is a society that was and remains very effectively terrorised, but in which life goes on normally. Indeed, it is a society in which life and prosperity are booming.
Then there is America, which has also been very effectively terrorised—by the events of a single terrorist attack. I will say more shortly about a sense of proportion, but there is no doubt that—while many people were killed in that one incident—America is unused to terrorism. Its reactions are an interesting lesson for mature and developed societies elsewhere.
Two weeks ago, when I visited Washington and New York with the Defence Committee, I had the edifying experience of watching surface-to-air missiles being deployed in the centre of towns, and policemen and members of the National Guard carrying their respirators—gas masks—in the "alert" position. Nuclear, biological and chemical warfare decontamination sites had already been established. There was advice on television every night on how to establish safe rooms—the modern-day equivalent of the Anderson shelter, perhaps—and on how society was coming to terms with the threat that was seen to be overweening. But the fact remains that on mainland America there has been only one substantial attack, and I therefore submit that in this instance terrorism is operating very effectively.
As for Bali, I think it fair to say—although others may well correct me—that Australia did not expect an attack of that kind. It was terribly badly hurt by the Bali bomb, and it has skewed its society's perception of terror. It is also interesting to note that the attack took place not in Australia itself, but abroad.
All that, I think, contains important lessons for us as the threat of terrorism grows—for, in my opinion, it is growing. For one thing, I think it important to retain a sense of proportion. On a number of occasions I have been extremely tedious on the subject of the House being "hung up" on the organisation al-Qaeda. The fact remains that al-Qaeda has been operating for more than 10 years, but has pulled off only one deeply successful incident. There is no doubt that 11 September was
634
hugely significant, but it was only one attack. It killed thousands of people—the number was probably out of all proportion to that which the perpetrators expected—but it should be borne in mind that al-Qaeda's normal style is much less adventurous. Operations such as the bombing of USS Cole and the attack on the Limberg were very successful from its point of view, but individual assassinations such as those we have seen in the past few weeks are much more likely. We should also bear in mind that this country, so far, has been attacked with relatively little success—owing, I have no doubt, to the excellence of our security services.
I am convinced that terrorists are trying hard to attack this country, but so far, mercifully, casualties here have been relatively light. Yes, Britain suffered on 11 September; yes, Britain suffered in Bali; but it seems that our society has learnt to live with that. How will we cope when attacks of similar proportions are made on this country, or indeed when the tempo of terrorists operations is increased?
Dr. Julian Lewis: May I take my hon. Friend back to what he said about America and the broadcasts advising ordinary people how they could prepare? I was not entirely sure whether he was suggesting that that was an over- reaction or an appropriate reaction. If it were an appropriate reaction, is he about to recommend that similar messages should be sent here? If so, does he feel that perhaps a limiting factor was the experience of 1980, when "Protect and Survive" was published, which was widely mocked? Does he agree that there is a difference between the circumstances of nuclear war preparations and terrorist preparations?
Patrick Mercer: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for recalling me to my duty in this regard. It was a point that I was going to develop but I will it develop now. It is difficult for the public and the likes of me, who do not have access to the sort of intelligence that the Intelligence and Security Committee get, to assess exactly what the threat is. Therefore, it is the Government's duty to make that threat both palatable, if a threat can be palatable, and realistic.
I do not know, to answer my hon. Friend's question, whether that was an over-reaction or not. The fact remains that, simultaneously, two distinct pieces of news were being given in Britain and America of severe threats to the infrastructure of both countries. America chose to go down the route of national broadcasts. This country chose to go down an all together less extreme route, albeit deploying armoured forces and infantry battalions at Heathrow airport for the first time, I think, in eight or nine years.
We must understand that victims from this country will not necessarily be in holiday resorts such as Bali; they are more likely to be in British possessions overseas such as Gibraltar and Cyprus. How are the Government fixed? How do the Government stand to handle mass casualties in garrisons or British possessions overseas? A lot of what we have heard tonight is reassuring but I should like to know more from the Minister on that point.
We must realise that, while we hear about things such as ricin plots being developed and more exotic forms of terrorism, the fact remains that the sort of terrorism that

635
is likely to kill is exactly the same as the sort of terrorism that we saw in Bali: operations that copy those carried out by the Provisional IRA over the past 30 years or so. This society must get used to the fact that improvised explosive devices cleverly targeted and placed will be the way ahead for the terrorist. We must learn as a society to live with that. Government advice, news and intelligence management must be sensitive to that.
For example, we constantly live with the threat of fire. Outside this Chamber, there are fire appliances. In our offices, we know what to do in the event of a fire; we are drilled. Until a few years ago, if one wanted to go shopping in the centre of Belfast, one understood that it would take at least 10 or 15 extra minutes to get into the city centre; one's car had to be searched and parking was difficult. Similarly, getting out again was a problem, but people learnt to live with that. During the blitz, this country learnt to live with a severe and clear threat.
If we are going to take the Prime Minister's words that we must take preventative measures without destroying our ordinary way of life to heart, we must become alert to the fact that there are terrorists abroad, inside our society, who wish to inflict the sort of casualties on us that we have seen both on 11 September and in Bali, but balance that with carrying out, as a Prime Minister would call it, ordinary life.
I believe, to use a naval expression, that we are standing into danger at the moment. We have seen Muslim extremists carrying out attacks in this country, or trying to carry out attacks in this country, and I have no doubt that as war with Iraq approaches, sadly, other forms of terrorism will become more and more prevalent. I echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) about warning fatigue, but I beg the Minister to understand that news and intelligence must be handled sensitively and consistently. We had contradictory information last November from the Home Secretary and in statements that were issued during the Heathrow alert a couple of weeks ago by the Labour party chairman. Issuing a warning or a warning of a threat and rescinding it is deeply counter-productive. There needs to be a code of practice that makes the approach much more cohesive and that the British public, be they at home or abroad, can understand more clearly.
The American system of a series of coloured warning levels is deeply helpful. Perhaps we have not approached that yet but I would like an assurance from the Minister that we are thinking of a public information campaign, again without alarming and panicking, but introducing the public to the fact that the threat will become more and more serious.
I welcome the written statement today on civil contingency planning to deal with a terrorist attack but I ask the Minister, although it is a matter not for his Department but for the Ministry of Defence, what plans there are to use the many tens of thousands of regular troops, by which I mean soldiers, sailors and airmen, all of whom are nuclear, biological and chemical warfare trained, to help with this matter. Currently I see no plans at all. There are plans with regard to territorials and reserves but what about those men and women who are not deployed overseas? Where do they fit into the plan?
At Mombasa, Israel had a very close shave from a hugely damaging and fatal series of terrorist attacks. What plans do we have to ensure that our airliners are
636
protected more effectively from surface-to-air missiles? Again, we had an alarm two weeks ago at Heathrow airport. I do not know the intelligence background to it but it seems clear that we lay under the same sort of threat that we had seen at Mombasa a few months ago. I would be interested to know how we might avoid such an attack in future.
I am grateful for the report. I hope that it will avoid attacks similar to the one in Bali being perpetrated against British citizens but I doubt it. I ask the Government to be more consistent in the way they handle information, to be more realistic in the way they deal with a potentially frightened population and to be fully aware of a threat that is prevalent at the moment and which I believe will increase in the near future.
6.58 pm
Mr. Kevin Barron: I will not delay the House too long. It seems that most of the issues in relation to the report have been covered by previous speeches. As a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, there is perhaps one area that I would like to introduce but, first, I have been a member of the Committee for nearly six years. After the tragedy, loss and injury that was sustained in Bali, the Committee was asked to look in great detail into what went off at Bali and to report back to the House. As was said earlier, that was done very quickly and in full co-operation with the different services: the Foreign Office and the Security Service.
If hon. Members look at the statute that brought the Committee into being, it restricts us in certain areas from looking into things. However, the Government asked us to look at such matters, and we were able to examine in close detail every intelligence report relating to this incident. I therefore hope that we can reassure the public that our reports are made after considering all the relevant issues. Indeed, the report in question noted that one of the agencies concerned was not in complete agreement with our analysis of events in Bali. Even though it creates a number of problems for our diaries and time scales, our ability to look at such issues in depth is very helpful, and I hope that the House agrees.
The Foreign Secretary rightly pointed out that the Committee had two broad criticisms of various aspects of the work relating to Bali. One of them I shall lightly skip over, but I should acknowledge that the Security Service does not agree with our analysis of the situation. That view is based on the wonderful principle of hindsight, but the threat assessment that was effectively the area of dispute between the Security Service and the Committee remains a very relevant issue. The report highlighted four factors that should have led to a higher level of threat assessment, including the grenade attack on an American diplomatic residence last September. A further point is that such developments needed to be considered in the light of the Indonesian authorities' public reluctance to deal with terrorism, and of the fact that terrorists may be more likely to attack a less well protected target. Again, such a view is based on the benefit of hindsight, but I should emphasise that at no time did the Committee find any evidence that the Bali tragedy could have been avoided.
A number of Members have touched on the travel advice issued by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, and I should like to pick up on a point made by my hon.

637
Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) in an intervention on the Foreign Secretary. The question of how to obtain travel advice was raised, along with the impact on the commercial aspect of travel—an issue that the Minister will doubtless have considered. The Committee considered the ways in which people obtain travel advice, including from the internet, from Ceefax and from the FCO's website, which has had many thousands of hits over the months, but also from travel agents.
On first considering this issue, I wanted to reassure myself that travel agents—who clearly have a commercial interest in making a profit—in no way attempt to filter advice that might otherwise prove commercially negative from their point of view. The Committee's conclusions and recommendations contain nothing negative in this regard, because we found no evidence of anything questionable in the way in which travel agents disseminate information on FCO travel advice. The Committee's report states:
"The Association of British Travel Agents … and the Federation of Travel Operators … told the Committee that it is their policy that if the FCO Travel Advice requests tourists and residents to 'take care' then that is drawn specifically to the travellers' attention whilst booking or before travel. ABTA and FTO also told the Committee that, when the FCO Travel Advice changes to recommend that 'all non-essential travel is avoided', arrangements are made to evacuate all their customers from the area affected. ABTA and FTO communicate with their members to make sure they are aware of important changes in the FCO Travel Advice."
I point that out simply to reassure people that they are in no way being disadvantaged in terms of travel advice, and that commercial decisions are not preventing the giving of good advice before they travel or during their journeys, should the situation change.
It was said earlier that we could follow the example of some other countries and issue travel warnings, but that others such as Israel have none whatsoever. However, in some cases such warnings are more to do with ensuring that litigation does not follow anything that might happen while abroad, rather than with giving advice so that, on the basis of it, people can make up their own minds as to whether to travel or to leave a particular place. Although the Committee did not study what happens in other parts of the world in any great depth, it became clear during our conversations that this country's system is in many senses much better than some others'. I have confidence in our existing system, so the broad criticisms that were made are in no way criticisms of the bulk of the work done in interpreting information gathered by the intelligence agencies, or of how travel advice and more specific advice is given to the FCO.
As I said earlier to the Minister, although such an investigation is not welcome in the aftermath of the Bali tragedy, I hope that it has given this House and the public confidence in respect of matters that only we are allowed to look into, given that we work inside the ring of secrecy, under the terms of official secrets legislation. I hope that the investigation has given them confidence that the brave men and women who work in our intelligence agencies are acting in the interests of the greater public good. We shall continue to support them, but it is clear that, from time to time, our reports will
638
highlight areas of criticism. However, I hope that, in general, those agencies have the support not just of our Committee, which worked closely with them, but of this House and of the general public.
7.07 pm
Mr. Nick Hawkins: As so often, this House takes great care when subjects as serious as terrorist atrocities are being debated, and this debate has been no exception. The Foreign Secretary—who, for reasons that I understand entirely, is away on other duties—set out the Government's position at the beginning of the debate. It is fair to say that things are not easy for any Cabinet Minister when a Committee of this House produces a somewhat critical report, and I shall turn a little later to the comments of a number of distinguished members of the Intelligence and Security Committee.
I thought that the Foreign Secretary was very balanced in his approach to the fairly serious criticisms from members of the ISC. However, as many of them subsequently confirmed, they were making specific criticisms, rather than wholesale criticisms of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the intelligence services or the bulk of the work that they do. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) rightly said, we want to add to the praise offered for the work done by the FCO throughout the world—and by those based in the FCO in London—and to the incredibly important work done by our intelligence services. That point was highlighted in the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer)—a contribution based on his considerable military experience before entering this House.
In response to the Foreign Secretary's balanced approach, my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk reinforced the condolences offered to the families of all who were affected by this terrible terrorist atrocity, but he also asked a number of specific questions. Such concerns are shared by our shadow Foreign Office team and by our Home Office team, for which I have the honour of being shadow spokesman on national security issues. My hon. Friend said that he hoped that in the wind-up, the Home Office Minister, the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), could confirm his assessment of the importance of human intelligence. Indeed, that point was stressed by several other Members on both sides of the House, but in particular by my hon. Friend the Member for Newark.
We want to hear from the Minister that both the Home Office and the Foreign Office are aware of the need to give human intelligence the proper emphasis in Government assessments of security matters in the future. In addition, my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk pointed out that several of our colleagues have asked for the whole matter of intelligence assessment of levels of threat to be more graded and more sensitive. As my hon. Friend rightly said, the Government's response to the ISC's report refers to the security services review, which will consider how to achieve greater definition, and that is welcome. We have heard subsequently from the Chairman of the ISC and other members of it that some further changes have been made, and we would be grateful if the Minister clarified the matter when he winds up.

639
My hon. Friend also pointed out that the Foreign Office website should carry links to the travel advice pages of other key western countries, such as the United States and Australia. We are grateful that the Foreign Secretary has responded to my right hon. Friend the shadow Foreign Secretary that he has accepted and implemented the suggestion. However, I have one warning to give. We have accepted in this important debate that website and e-mail information is crucial—many British expatriates use the internet extensively—but I hope that travel advice will not be given only on the internet. Not all of those who wish to travel abroad use computers. Not all people, especially young students, have access to the internet—some of them cannot afford it. Also, because people travel from country to country, it might be important that a young British traveller could call in to any Foreign Office post anywhere in the world and get a hard copy of the travel advice. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Suffolk pointed out, the gap-year phenomenon has grown—certainly since my time at university, 25 years ago—and so many young Britons now travel abroad and need access to updated advice as they travel. I hope that the Minister will confirm that hard copy will be made available.
My hon. Friend also said that he hoped that the Minister would be able to give us a specific assessment of the impact of FCO travel advice on the validity of travel insurance claims for holidays cancelled in response to a heightened threat level. I hope that the Minister will specifically address that point, but I will understand if he has to write to my hon. Friend. If the Minister puts his response in writing, I hope that he will place a copy in the Library. British citizens may change their holiday plans if FCO advice describes a heightened threat assessment. If they do so, it would be a shame if their travel insurance were invalidated.
My hon. Friend also raised the issue of whether rapid response teams will all be London based or whether in future some of them might be based in large regional posts. The Foreign Secretary helpfully intervened to explain that the rapid response teams created in the aftermath of Bali will be based in London, but they will be supplemented with people from regional posts. I hope that the Government will keep the matter under review, because some countries with very large diplomatic posts could benefit from a rapid response team. For example, a team based in Australia, which is a long way from London, would have been much closer to Bali.
Many of us have had some contact with families who lost loved ones in Bali. My hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins), for example, told me that a friend of a friend was a victim of the Bali bombing. Those of us who are interested in sport were particularly affected by the fact that so many of the young adult victims were members of sports clubs in Australia, Hong Kong and Singapore. Only a month before the Bali bomb I stood outside the Singapore cricket club, and the victims included some members of the rugby section of that club. Those of us who have been on overseas sports tours know the devastating effect that the loss of several members of a small sports club can have on a local community. I had a friend at university who was murdered by the IRA in the Harrods bombing, and I know that anyone who knows a victim of terrorism is affected by it and remembers it for the rest of their life.
640
The right hon. Member for Dewsbury (Ann Taylor), the distinguished Chairman of the ISC, led the House through the Committee's report and its experience of considering all the issues. She rightly paid tribute to the Foreign Secretary and his advisers for giving the Committee full access to all the relevant papers. She confirmed that they contained nothing about a specific attack on Bali. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) made the point in an intervention—he later expanded on it in his speech—about the most likely location in Indonesia for an attack on western interests. There was a difference of view between members of the Committee about how significant that point was, but it deserves consideration when we learn the lessons from that terrible experience.
The right hon. Lady, in an effective analysis, made the point that the Committee saw sequentially on one day all the intelligence related to the region. She rightly made the point that that is not how it happens in reality for those in the FCO or the intelligence community who have the difficult task of analysing that intelligence. As so many hon. Members have pointed out, there is a danger in using 20:20 hindsight. The right hon. Lady, having made that allowance, went on to emphasise the Committee's conclusion that the threat level was not sufficiently differentiated between significant and high. She acknowledged that the definitions had been reworked and was pleased that matters were improving. She paid tribute to the creation of the joint terrorism advice centre, which she felt would improve matters, but she drew attention to paragraph 7 of the Government's response to the Committee's report which said that the information given to expatriate Britons in Indonesia was not as clear as the Foreign Office travel advice given to those about to travel to Bali.
The right hon. Member for Newport, East (Alan Howarth), who is also a member of the Committee, intervened to make the important point about the dangers of using word processors to lift complete paragraphs from previous texts. To someone taking a quick look at the information, it might look as if it had not changed. That is a valid point because it happens all the time, in this sensitive area and in so many others. The Chairman rightly agreed with her hon. Friend. She made the point that sometimes it is better if someone outside the direct operation of the daily revision of the advice is asked to take a fresh look at it. Someone from outside can see whether a wrong impression is given, as perhaps happened with the Foreign Office advice on that occasion.
Several other hon. Members spoke powerfully, including as so often, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, who spoke from his extensive experience on the Committee and in the House. He talked about his observations, shortly after the tragedy, of the grief felt in Australia. It is important for all of us to recognise that however terrible we felt the attack to be—there were victims from the UK—it was Australia that suffered the most, and the right hon. Gentleman stressed that point. He rightly said that terrorism is the most cowardly form of attack and that there had been a failure of judgment in that the threat advice—the warning—should have concentrated on Bali, given its nature in terms of the concentration of young foreign holidaymakers.

641
The right hon. Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson), the distinguished Chairman of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, talked about his Committee's responsibility to scrutinise Foreign Office travel advice. He mentioned the need to use plain English in that advice and spoke about the work of his Committee on matters such as rapid response teams. I am sure that hon. Members are, as always, grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for sharing his expertise as Chairman of the Committee.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newark, who speaks from his extensive military experience prior to his election here, said that he has done nine tours in Ulster—experience that is unparalleled among Members of this House—including time spent on intelligence matters. He stressed that the terrorists' aim is to terrify but that, happily, the mature western democracies that are trying to match the threat are not terrified. He also emphasised that terrorists are still trying to attack the UK, and rightly paid tribute to the work that our security services are doing to detect and deter the threat and to protect all law-abiding citizens of this country. In a telling naval phrase, he said that we are standing into danger at present. He asked the Minister to confirm that news and intelligence must be handled sensitively and consistently, drawing attention to problems such as the mixed messages that were given out about Heathrow about two weeks ago, which my right hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), the shadow Home Secretary, and I were concerned about. I know that lessons will have been learned from that, even if the Minister is not prepared to concede that anything went wrong. A great deal of confusion was created by statements about threat levels being made, then withdrawn. I hope that that will not happen again.
My right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot), another distinguished member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, intervened on my hon. Friend the Member for Newark to make an important point based on his experience of considering such issues as a member of the Committee.
The right hon. Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron), who has been a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee for six years, said that he could see that our system was better than the system in some other countries, and although he entirely supported what his Committee said in its conclusions, he did not want to make any criticism of the way in which much of the work is done. I hope that I have made it clear that Conservative Members share his view that we ought to praise all the work that is done by diplomatic posts around the world and by our intelligence services, while hoping that lessons will be learned from one or two aspects that did not go quite right on this occasion.
Finally, will the Minister say a word or two about what is happening in Bali now? The various reports about the aftermath say that a huge amount of funding has been provided, particularly by the United States, to help the Indonesian Government with counter-terrorism measures and security, and I have no doubt that the UK is playing its part. Some hon. Members tend to speak in this Chamber from a viscerally anti-
642
American viewpoint. If they looked at the reports on the amount of American funding in the aftermath of the Bali bomb, they might have a more positive view of the way in which America is shouldering its responsibilities to ensure worldwide peace and security. I hope that the Minister is able to say that this country will provide a lot more funding for that purpose. British taxpayers might be happier for their money to be spent on that than on, to cite a bizarre example, funding for gender equality programmes. That is not quite the sort of thing that we should be spending money on when there are British citizens to be protected across the world.
7.24 pm
The Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety(Mr. John Denham): First, I put on record the apologies of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. I am grateful to Opposition Members for accepting that he has pressing business that meant that he was been unable to stay for the entire debate.
I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury (Ann Taylor) and other members of the Committee for their work on the report, which has led to a positive and constructive debate. As Ministers, we are in debt to the Committee for the way in which it did its work. As has been said, at least tangentially, one of the problems faced by a Government who are dealing with matters that are necessarily confidential is that one is always prone to the allegation that things are being kept under wraps, and the smallest difference in nuance between one statement and another is taken as evidence that something is being covered up. In this case, it was enormously to the advantage of the Government, the public and the media that the Committee was able to do its work as it did, irrespective of whether we have to live with the occasional judicious criticism or balanced disagreement on interpretation. It should be a huge reassurance to everybody concerned that the Committee was able to go about its work so responsibly. I am grateful to members of the Committee for thanking my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary for the cooperation that was extended to it.
I extend my sympathies and those of the Home Secretary and other ministerial colleagues to the victims, their families and friends and everyone else who suffered from the despicable acts in Bali. As all hon. Members have said, there can be no possible justification for the indiscriminate carnage that was caused. Inevitably, although not overwhelmingly, the debate has focused on the safety of the British public. That in no way diminishes the tragedy of the loss of life of 24 British citizens or the loss of life of the Australian citizens who formed the majority of those who were murdered in Bali. As the Committee reminds us in its report, nationals of some 20 countries were murdered. Many Indonesians lost their lives or were injured and have subsequently suffered severe damage to their livelihoods.
The hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) asked me about current actions in Bali. He will understand that that is more the province of my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, so I will write to him about it. I nevertheless thank him for having raised the matter.

643
Whatever might have been claimed, the murders were indiscriminate as to nationality and religion. Those who did it cared not a jot for those whom they killed or maimed; the story was tragically the same as that of 11 September. I make that point not only in remembrance of all the victims, but as an illustration of the dangers and difficulties involved in combating the enemy that we face, owing to its callousness and unpredictability. Hon. Members will need no assistance in making the link to the need for the precautionary powers that were debated and renewed in this Chamber earlier today. The debate demonstrates that information is an essential weapon in fighting terrorism—information for the authorities on terrorists and their plans, so that action can be taken, and information for the public, so that they can remain safe, assist in combating terrorism and, as far as is possible, go about their normal business while being aware but alert.
I shall try to weave my responses to most of the points that were raised into my general remarks, but it might be easier if I dealt with some specific points now. The hon. Members for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) and for Newark (Patrick Mercer) referred to human intelligence. We recognise that whatever the developments in technological methods of gathering information, human intelligence is of great importance. I hope that something that will be achieved through the expanded resources that several hon. Members mentioned is the development of our capacity to gain human intelligence and to use it effectively. I would not of course want to link that comment to any particular events, but I hope that I have given the hon. Gentlemen the reassurance that they sought.
The issue of travel insurance was raised, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Mr. Barron) talked about it in the wider context. I was grateful to him for reassuring the House, on the basis of his experience as a member of the Intelligence and Security Committee, that the travel industry was cooperating well and using information responsibly. I am pleased that he did not find evidence that information was being concealed from the travelling public.
Let us consider travel advice, cancellation costs and insurance. It is important to remember that the aim of travel advice is to provide an objective picture of the risks to travellers. It is therefore important that it is given objectively, and not swayed by different parties' commercial interests. Sometimes individuals or companies press the Government to be firmer or less firm in their advice, according to the clarity that they seek. Although we are aware of those considerations, we are not influenced by them. It is the Government's clear responsibility to make an objective judgment on travel advice, and to get it right.
Sir John Stanley: Before the Minister leaves the subject of insurance, is he aware that the son of constituents of mine was among the British citizens who were murdered in Bali? It was five weeks after his marriage; his young widow narrowly survived, thanks to the Australians. I have raised the matter on the Floor of the House previously, and I recently discussed it personally with the Foreign Secretary. My murdered constituent's life assurance policy is the subject of challenge because the loss of life occurred
644
through an act of terrorism. The issue has been referred to the Financial Secretary. Will the Minister assure hon. Members that the Financial Secretary will make a full report on that important issue to the House when she has completed her discussions with the insurance industry? Does he agree that it would be deplorable if, as a matter of general practice, the insurance industry began to cover life assurance policies with terrorist exclusions, thereby rendering people unable to provide financially through insurance for their next of kin in the case of a terrorist attack?
Mr. Denham: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for making that point. I understand that ministerial colleagues are raising those issues with the insurance industry. I cannot say when it might be possible to provide a report, or specify its form, but I shall draw his remarks, which he has made previously, to my hon. Friends' attention. I shall try to ensure that he is updated on progress when it is possible to do that.
The hon. Member for Newark made several interesting points, which went wider than I wish to go in my reply, about the challenge of living with a level of international terrorism that we have not previously experienced. He asked a specific question about airline security. Some measures were publicised before Christmas, but I shall ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport to bring the hon. Gentleman up to date with the latest developments.
I have had the opportunity to thank the Committee for its work; let me now deal with specific items that it covered and that have been mentioned in the debate. The Committee made several observations about intelligence, threat assessment and the intelligence and security agencies. I hope that the Committee's finding that no intelligence that could have prevented the tragic events of 12 October in Bali had been missed or mishandled will provide some reassurance and comfort to the victims' families.
The Committee also found that sufficient priority was given to collecting intelligence. It believed that the Security Service should have raised the threat assessment for Indonesia from significant to high before the Bali bombings. As the Committee acknowledges, the judgments are difficult and I was grateful that my right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury drew attention to the difference between the intelligence that was available to the Committee and that available to the Security Service.
The judgment of the Security Service remains that, on the intelligence available, "significant" was the correct assessment. The Committee published its definition of significant in the report, which states:
"Recent … intelligence of terrorist activity, the overall security and political climate, or the target's individual circumstances, indicate that it is likely to be a priority target".
The assessment therefore clearly suggested that Indonesia was a priority target for terrorists.
The report and the Government's response deal with the threat assessment process, which was also mentioned today. Such assessments by the Security Service are a key component in countering intended terrorist actions and informing the public. Such information includes advice to travellers. Those who make such assessments are skilled, dedicated and experienced individuals, to whom several hon. Members paid tribute. They have to make difficult judgments.

645
The hon. Member for West Suffolk asked for further details of the review of the threat assessment process. My right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury described the importance that the Committee attributed to greater gradation in the available assessments. The review to develop the process further has been completed and it will be implemented in the next few weeks. The Committee published the existing definitions of the threat levels. I do not believe that it would be appropriate to publish the new definitions, which are more detailed, and allow greater discrimination in order to be more valuable to customers who use the information, because it is important not to provide information that may be useful to terrorists by suggesting what is available to those who make threat assessments. It is important to stress that the threat assessment is not intended to be a public information guide but a tool, information and advice that is used by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, which offers advice through, for example, travel advice to the general public.
Mr. Beith: I understand why the Minister does not believe that it is appropriate to publish. The appropriateness of publishing the definitions of the level of threat assessment is debatable, but, when he quotes the Committee's definition of significant, he must remember that that information was not available to anyone at the time. The link between threat assessment and travel advice is therefore crucial, because even the improved definitions will not work unless they are translated into good travel advice.
Mr. Denham: The right hon. Gentleman makes a good point. Earlier, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary outlined the review and the changes to the travel advice. Of course, it is important—indeed, essential—to the process that threat assessment can be translated into useful and useable advice for members of the travelling public. A better designed threat assessment would help to address some of the anxieties that the Committee expressed in its report. Needless to say, details of the new threat assessment have been shared with Committee members in private. Doubtless the Committee will continue to keep the process under review.
Mr. Arbuthnot: The Minister may be right that the threat assessments should not be made public. However, is not the logic of that position that the Government should have asked the Intelligence and Security Committee not to make public the levels of previous threat assessments? What if the Government had undertaken a review and decided not to change them? Would not the same arguments have applied?
Mr. Denham: In my opening remarks, I praised the role of the Committee and said that such Committees are valuable to the Government—I say that as a parliamentarian as well as a Minister. The Committee, in publishing the information, may well have done something that previous Governments had not done. However, given the changed threat assessment, I believe that we should not publish it. My right hon. Friends the
646
Home Secretary and the Foreign Secretary also hold that view. However, we are taking a step forward by sharing the information with the Committee.
The danger is that the more refined a system of threat assessment, the more information it effectively conveys about what information is available to the Security Service and those who make the assessment. That is the judgment that has to be made. As the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) suggested, the critical point is that we have to ensure that the process for translating the Security Service threat assessment into useful public advice is good, robust and clear. Of course, that is why we entirely accept that the two processes that have been discussed in the debate have to fit together well; they cannot be separated.
In passing, I agree with the hon. Member for West Suffolk in warning about the danger of an upward drift in threat assessments because there is a heightened threat generally, as it is important that we do not fall into the trap of fuelling warning fatigue by doing so.
Other developments that were mentioned in the debate include the continued enhancement of the arrangements for handling and disseminating terrorist intelligence. Experts from the intelligence and security agencies and relevant Departments will be sited in an enlarged single joint terrorist analysis centre, acting under the director general of the Security Service. That will further help to weave together existing threads of intelligence to give customer departments an even better, timely, yet coherent picture of the risks to be managed.
I finish by addressing the issue of informing the public. The Government remain committed to informing the public on all safety matters, including the risk of terrorism, but, as the Prime Minister said in his Mansion house speech last November, one of the aims of terrorists is to scare people, disrupt their normal lives, produce chaos and disorder and distort proper and sensible decision making. We must not do their job for them. However, the public have the right to have their concerns addressed and to know, as far as possible, what is being done for their protection.
The Government and the police will always try to make advice on the dangers of terrorism as clear as possible. Public safety continues to be our first priority in all decisions about public information or warnings. If a warning is necessary to protect public safety in the face of a specific and credible threat, we will issue one without hesitation, as well as giving out any further information that will help the public to respond effectively. But those are the only good reasons for issuing information associated with intelligence, since we are not in the business of educating terrorists, jeopardising intelligence operations or sources, or disrupting normal life without very good reason.
We would, for example, have to be careful about concluding—to follow the logic of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed a step further—that all bars, centres of social life and shopping centres anywhere in the world were to be avoided because they could possibly make very unpleasant targets for terrorists. So we have to treat such matters very carefully indeed.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury welcomed the information given by the Foreign Secretary this afternoon on the improvements to the

647
advice system to ensure that the public can place their trust in Foreign and Commonwealth Office advice to travellers. Such advice is intended to give reassurance, promote normality and provide information so that sensible decisions can be made. A copy of the review of travel advice to which my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary referred has been placed in the Library.
Although I suspect that those in the gap-year generation are probably more familiar with using the internet than anyone else, I am assured that, on calling into an embassy or consulate, it would be possible to obtain a hard copy of the advice as people travel around the world.
We hope that the aims that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has set out for travel advice will also apply to the new dedicated internet site, announced by the Home Secretary today, to provide straightforward UK-focused advice to the public on the terrorist threat and personal protection. Of course, appropriate advice on safety will continue to be provided to the public in advance of the launch of the new website.
I said earlier that information is an essential weapon in fighting terrorism in all its forms; it is, but it is not the only one. I cannot let this debate pass without adding my tribute and that of the Home Secretary and other ministerial colleagues to the work of the intelligence and security agencies and the many contributions that the Security Service, the Secret Intelligence Service and GCHQ make individually and collectively to the safety of our citizens both at home and abroad. Of course, that work is not limited to their intelligence contribution, but involves a range of other protective measures.
Hon. Members present today will be well aware of why the successes of the intelligence and security agencies cannot be trumpeted, but let no one doubt the real difference that they make. I am sure that the whole House joins me in thanking the individuals who make up those organisations. It would also be appropriate to acknowledge the role played by our consular staff around the world and those who have volunteered for the new rapid response teams that were announced earlier today.
I finish as I began by thanking my right hon. Friend the Member for Dewsbury, who chairs the Committee, and her colleagues for their hard work. I also thank
648
those hon. Members who have spoken in this mature, constructive and thoughtful debate. If, on reflection, I have missed any specific issue that hon. Members have raised, I promise to write to them about it.
Charlotte Atkins: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION
Mr. Deputy Speaker(Sir Alan Haselhurst): With permission, I shall put together motions 3 and 4.
Ordered,

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (HEALTH SCRUTINY FUNCTIONS)
That the Local Authority (Overview and Scrutiny Committees Health Scrutiny Functions) Regulations 2002 (S.I., 2002, No. 3048), Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health (Functions) Regulations 2002 (S.I., 2002, No. 3007) and Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health (Membership and Procedure) Regulations 2002 (S.I., 2002, No. 3038) be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.
GREATER LONDON AUTHORITY (PRECEPT CALCULATIONS)
That the Greater London Authority (Allocation of Grants for Precept Calculations) Regulations 2003 (S.I., 2003, No. 225), be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Charlotte Atkins.]

COMMITTEES
Mr. Deputy Speaker: With permission, I shall put together motions 5 and 6.
Ordered,

That Angela Eagle be discharged from the Committee of Public Accounts and Mr Siôn Simon be added.
That Roger Casale be discharged from the European Scrutiny Committee and John Robertson be added.—[Charlotte Atkins.]

Refugee Centre, Sittingbourne
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Charlotte Atkins.]
7.46 pm
Mr. Derek Wyatt: I thank the House for giving me this opportunity to address the serious issue of the Coniston hotel in my constituency and the workings of the National Asylum Support Service—NASS for short.
First, I should like to apologise to the House. I said sometime in early January on a radio phone-in programme that I was in favour of a two-year moratorium on asylum seekers. Sometimes, on live programmes, we say something that, almost before we have finished the sentence, we know we will live to regret. On reflection, I should have added the words, "Except, first, for bona fide refugees and, secondly, for economic migrants." Of course, what constitutes a bona fide refugee goes to the heart of the current debate about asylum seekers, and we have not reached agreement on what constitutes an economic migrant. Although I would be happy to develop those arguments, this evening is not the time to do so.
I wish to dwell on the decision, taken by NASS, to select the Coniston hotel as an induction centre for 111 refugees and asylum seekers. I have asked questions in the House, as well as tabling two early-day motions. In response to a question that I asked during Home Office questions, the Home Secretary said:
"My hon. Friend the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration has made it clear today that the procedure and process by which this matter was handled was unsatisfactory and that she has undertaken immediately to put in place a review. She is examining the contractual arrangements and why the letter sent by the local authority chief executive on 3 October last was not replied to. All those matters display an incompetence about which our Administration are doing something, as I have explained in the House before, but, with the new director general of the immigration and nationality directorate, we require a step change in the way that that directorate relates to local communities, responds to local Members of Parliament and displays its competence in dealing with these sensitive issues."—[Official Report, 20 January 2003; Vol. 398, c. 6.]
Later, at Prime Minister's questions, the Prime Minister said:
"Let me make it clear that there has been inadequate and wrong use of the consultation procedures. I entirely understand the concern of my hon. Friend and his constituents. That is why the Minister responsible has tackled the issue."—[Official Report. 22 January 2003; Vol. 398, c. 294.]
The consultation period should have begun at the outset. All parties have signed up to that and it has now happened, although I have asked that the decision be taken independently of NASS, as it was at fault in the first place.
Two petitions have been presented over the past six weeks—one to the House and one to the Prime Minister. The first had more than 5,000 signatures and the second more than 7,000. Moreover, as I understand it, more than 4,000 constituents have written to NASS about the Coniston hotel. Swale borough council, largely due to the good offices of Councillor Truelove, has submitted its response, as has the local residents association, SACK, representatives of which came to see my hon.
650
Friend the Minister two weeks ago. May I place on record my thanks to her and her staff for seeing them, the time that she gave them, and the manner and way in which she listened carefully to their arguments. They left the meeting feeling that there was a heart and soul to this government process after all. My response will go in tomorrow, and I sense that this debate is the end of the formal process. I know that the Minister must probably wait not only for NASS's recommendations on the Coniston, but for Swale borough council's legal objections, based on a change of use for the hotel. In her response, perhaps she will let us know when she thinks that she will be able to make a decision, and whether it will be after the legal process has been completed.
First, let me raise my objection to the way in which NASS reached its decision with Accommodata in respect of the Coniston hotel. The Coniston hotel was owned by Mr. and Mrs. Kleczowski. They wanted to sell the hotel, which had been in the family for two generations. They were expecting to sell it to a bona fide hotel group so that it could be improved. They gave instructions to Christie and Co., and on 10 September 2002 a sale was negotiated with Multinational Trading Ltd., with a registered office at P&O distribution unit, 2 Rockware avenue, Greenford, Middlesex. The lawyers acting for the owners were Jarmans solicitors, of Bell house, Bell road, Sittingbourne. The solicitor doing the deal, or acting on behalf of the owners, was Brian Slater. On 13 September, papers were sent to the buyers' solicitors, Jeffrey Green Russell, for the attention of Mr. Benton at 56, New Bond street, London W 1. On 15 November 2003, a new company, called Heatherside Ltd., company No. 106771C, with a registered office at St. George's court, Upper Church street, Douglas, Isle of Man, was going to be the potential new owner of the Coniston. Contracts were exchanged on 19 November, with completion fixed for 20 January 2003.
On 7 January, that changed again—this time with a new company and a new set of lawyers. A notice was received from Jeffrey Green Russell, but a contract had been signed with Munro Properties Ltd., care of RBC Trustees (Guernsey) Ltd., of PO box 48, Canada court, St. Peter Port, Guernsey. Their solicitors were stated to be GSC of 31–32 Ely place, London EC1. Accommodata, of which the owners had not heard, never appeared anywhere in the sale document. On 10 January 2003, GSC wrote to the owners direct as the licence holders to say that the applicants would be Paul Greenwood and Ian Michael Richards of Accommodata Ltd., and stated:
"It has been anticipated that Munroe Properties Ltd. will complete the acquisition on 20 January 2003. The Property will however be operated by Accommodata Limited".
On 15 January 2003, a licensing application was received by Jarmans, the solicitors for the owners, when it first became aware that the new licensing owners would be Accommodata. Finally, on 4 February 2003, the hotel acquisition was completed.
It seems to me that NASS began negotiations with Accommodata well before it owned the hotel—I suspect in the middle of 2002. It had certainly signed a deal with Accommodata to provide an asylum and induction centre by 13 November 2002, with a start date of 29 January 2003. If you will forgive me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I find this part of the process extraordinary. The lawyers for the hotel owners had no idea that it

651
would end up with Accommodata and that it would end up as an induction centre, but NASS did. That is not how a Government agency should be allowed to work or act. You will see, Minister, that the owner of the Coniston—
Mr. Deputy Speaker(Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has read the Speaker's recent letter, but he is in breach of it in two respects at present. He must not use the second person when referring to another hon. Member. I shall leave him to think about what the other matter is.
Mr. Wyatt: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and you are quite right.
My hon. Friend will know that the Coniston's former owners did not know until 6 January the intent of the owners, who were finally revealed as Accommodata. Their lawyer, Brian Slater from Jarmans, did not know until four days later, and Slater's partner handling the change of title for the liquor licence did not know for another five days, on the morning of the request at our local magistrates court in Sittingbourne. Our support services in Kent were given less than two weeks to cater for 111 refugees and asylum seekers, yet NASS had begun negotiating with Accommodata perhaps as early as six months before anyone knew that that would happen. Will my hon. Friend tell us, as I asked at our second meeting, whether NASS will put into the public domain its due diligence on Accommodata? I hope that she will tell us tonight that that will be done.
Let me turn to one or two people behind Accommodata. I shall concentrate on three companies in particular. The first is a company that I think was established in 1988 called Buckingham International. By 1993, it had losses of approximately £100 million. We may have to take this with a pinch of salt, but according to Private Eye:
"In the process, offshore Jivraj family trusts and companies in Jersey, Switzerland and the Netherlands Antilles swapped highly priced assets and debt for cash and Buckingham shares in a tax free haven."
The second company, Petersham House Kensington Residents Association Ltd., went into compulsory liquidation. A petition was presented by the directors to the High Court on 10 June 1992, reference 003594. Its directors included N. N. Jivraj and N. G. R Jivraj. Three firms of accountants were reported to the Institute of Chartered Accountants in Milton Keynes, which took four years to reach a deliberation. As the investigation committee at the ICA included members from PKF and Stoy Hayward, it is strange to record that no action was taken. After all, they were two of the three accountants reported to the ICA in the first place, so no surprises there then.
The local council, Kensington and Chelsea, in an unprecedented move, also instituted proceedings. Mr. N. Brydon from the Insolvency Service handled the case, and J. R. Sibley was listed as the official receiver. It may be—this is part of the complication of some of the companies that I am talking about—that PHKRA Ltd. was a subsidiary or owned by another company called Brimtal Ltd. A DTI inquiry into Brimtal Ltd. took place in 1993–94. Apparently, it had committed five breaches of company law, and its accounts had understated losses by £160,000. Peter Joyce, then the chief executive officer
652
of the Insolvency Service, part of the DTI, failed to take any criminal proceedings against the directors. That is despite the fact that from 1981 to 1989 it appears that the company was treated as dormant, although in fact it was trading. It appears that no annual general meetings were held between 1981 and 1989, no accounts were distributed to shareholders, and information to Companies House apparently may have fallen outside the law of the day. A third company, Calfayre Ltd., owners of the 157-bed Holiday Inn hotel in Cromwell road, Kensington went into receivership with estimated debts of £20 million. The joint receivers were Alan Barrett arid James Wilding of Price Waterhouse.
Let us move forward to 2000, when Accommodata Ltd. was incorporated on 16 February with an address of 5th floor, Regina house, 124 Finchley road, London NW3, registration No. 04663698, company No. 3926871. Other shareholders included Shallan Ltd. and Zareno Ltd., which are also wholly or partly owned by Nurdin and Nick Jivraj. The last accounts were registered on 31 December 2001, and the next accounts were due on 31 October 2003. As we know, Accommodata Ltd. appears to have purchased the Coniston hotel through Multinational Trading Ltd., then Heatherside Ltd., and then Munro Properties Ltd.
For my peace of mind, will the DTI, the FSA and the Serious Fraud Squad undertake an analysis of those companies, especially Buckingham International? Last Thursday'sFinancial Times ran a leader asking for an independent system of monitoring auditors. I wish that it had also asked for an independent system of monitoring liquidators. The Government need to look at preventing offshore companies registered in tax havens from owning residential properties in the UK. Alternatively, the rules governing those offshore companies' finances should be the same as ours. I could not access the Jivraj's accounts in the Isle of Man or Jersey because their financial rules and obligations hide the information. That cannot be right. The Tories may have sat on their hands for 18 years over that, but our people expect better from the Labour Government.
However much information I put into the public domain, my sense about NASS is that because Accommodata had already worked with it at centres in Leicester and Cardiff, it never undertook an original forensic due diligence examination of the company directors back when it was formed in February 2000. Therefore, when the Coniston was put up for another induction centre, it was already a done deal. I hope that the legal department at NASS is subject to a separate inquiry.
That is enough about NASS—let me turn to the Coniston itself. The Coniston is our only major hotel in Sittingbourne.
Mr. Stephen Pound: I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for being his usual generous self and allowing me to intervene. Rockware avenue in Greenford, which my hon. Friend has mentioned, is in my constituency and I have looked into this issue. My investigations have led me in a different direction from that of my hon. Friend. Is he aware that both Migrant

653
Helpline and the Refugee Council have given unequivocally glowing endorsements of the standard of service that is provided by Accommodata?
Mr. Wyatt: That is not the case in Leicester, where I think a High Court case is about to take place.
As I have said, the Coniston hotel is the only hotel in Sittingbourne. The economic report of Swale borough council said that we desperately need another hotel as demand is outstripping supply. Four weeks ago, I started an e-mail conversation with Hammerson, the owners of the Oracle at Reading and Brent Cross in north London. The company has bought 51 acres in the heart of Sittingbourne. No doubt it will want to develop a retail park, a multiplex cinema and an indoor swimming pool—as well as an inlet marina with housing. All that that will do is increase the need for hotel beds and hotel investment.
We need the Coniston. We want people from Hammerson, as well as our current business visitors, to stay and spend their money locally and enhance our local economy. We need the Coniston and we would like it hack. We need it most because it is our community hotel. Already, 40 weddings have had to be postponed. Can NASS understand the heartache and disappointment that rearranging those 40 weddings has caused my constituents?
Is it true that NASS neither visited the Coniston before signing the deal with Accommodata nor asked for any economic or social data from Swale borough council? Coniston is not a secure site. Will my hon. Friend confirm that police costs for securing the Coniston have already reached £100,000 in less than two months? Should NASS go ahead with its plans at the Coniston, the police bill, over three years, will be somewhere between £1.5 million and £2 million. Who will pay for that—Accommodata, NASS, Kent county council or Swale borough council? Our citizens have a right to know.
If the Government had asked its top 300 towns and cities to share in the process of accommodating refugees and asylum seekers, we could manage the current influx. Had NASS brought people in Sittingbourne inside the decision-making process, and helped us to lay the issues in front of our citizens, we would have suggested properties and had a mature debate with our stakeholders—including our local churches, which I am sure would have taken a lead. We would have understood these issues better. I believe that if the site had not been our only hotel, we would have welcomed the refugees. Sittingbourne people are decent people. They understand how serious an issue this is for the Government—any Government. However, they have turned against us. They do not fully understand the relationship between the Home Office and NASS; people think that they are one and the same. Consequently, people have lost trust in the process of democracy.
When my hon. Friend the Minister reviews this case, I hope that she will agree that NASS has to be broken up, that it has to be moved from Croydon, and that it needs better management and management systems across all Government Departments. Notwithstanding
654
the costs involved at the Coniston, I hope that it will be given back to our community. After all, it is our only community hotel.
8.3 pm
The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration(Beverley Hughes): I thank my hon. Friend for the way in which he has presented his case and for his courtesy in sending me a copy of his remarks a little earlier in the day. That helped me to ensure that I could answer as many of his points as possible.
As he knows, I have made it clear before that I am deeply unhappy with the way in which NASS failed to maintain communications with Swale borough council during the procurement process for bed spaces at the Coniston hotel. He also knows that I have instituted a review of NASS operations generally and that, since my appointment as Minister, I have accelerated the regionalisation of NASS. That is on track. I regard it as an evolutionary process. We will consider extending functions that can be regionalised as the first wave of regionalisation settles. I hope that it will be successful.
Since 10 January, there have been regular meetings between NASS and the council. In addition, NASS officials have attended two public meetings in Sittingbourne, at which members of the local community were able to raise concerns. My hon. Friend thanked me, for which I thank him. As he said, I was able to meet local councillors and community representatives in Sittingbourne. The meeting was useful and constructive, and conducted in a mature and open way. At the meeting, I made it clear that, although we could not allow consultation to continue indefinitely, I was happy to agree to an extension to ensure that everybody felt that they had had an opportunity to contribute. At that point, residents asked to continue at least until 28 February. As soon as people feel that the consultation has run its course, I will be in a position to receive a report and make a decision. I hope that many concerns can be resolved during discussions between NASS and the council—although we may have to accept that some issues will not be resolved. I will get a full report and I will make the decision on whether or not we will place asylum seekers at the Coniston hotel.
Bearing in mind some of my hon. Friend's comments, this debate gives me an opportunity to set out again what happened during the exercise to procure bed spaces to support an induction centre for those making their applications in the south-east. NASS ran a competitive tendering exercise, in line with standard Government procurement guidelines. There was nothing underhand or secretive about the process. It was done in the normal way. The guidelines require that information on tenders must be considered as "commercial in confidence"—a technical term with which I am sure my hon. Friend will be familiar—until a contract is awarded. However, the need to treat tenders as commercial in confidence does not prevent consultation. As part of the exercise, bidders were told that details of their tender would be passed to the relevant local authority. Letters were sent to chief executives of local authorities in areas where we were looking to procure bed spaces. The letter, while making it clear that the information contained was commercial in confidence, did not prevent information being shared with anyone in the council, or outside the council,

655
whom the chief executive thought it was necessary to supply information to. NASS needed the information to enable it to undertake a full and careful evaluation of all the tenders.
Two letters were received from Swale borough council. I have seen them. They are very short and anyone reading them would see no concerns that they would think that the authors had thought significant. The second letter passed on some information about possible crime and disorder concerns. However, I want to make it clear that those concerns were generalised and did not relate to the possibility that asylum seekers staying at a hotel would engage in criminal activity in the local area. NASS considered the contents of the letters but took the view that there was nothing in them to prevent the hotel from being used as accommodation only. A report came to me and a contract with Accommodata was signed on 11 December. As I have already said, it is my real regret—and I admit that I had assumed that things were happening differently—that while the process was continuing, NASS did not correspond with the council. It should have done. It is also a fact that, once the contract was signed, NASS could have, and should have, engaged more quickly with the council to allay public concerns.
NASS has entered into a contract with Accommodata to use up to 111 bed spaces at the Coniston hotel, as my hon. Friend has said. In turn, Accommodata—which has a licence to operate the hotel but does not own it—has a contract with the owner, Munro Properties, to lease bed spaces there to enable it to fulfil its contract with NASS. I am told that there are other bedrooms at the hotel that are not part of the agreement between Accommodata and Munro. Those are available for use by the public—although I have heard comments from local residents on the feasibility of that use continuing with asylum seekers in the hotel. I understand those points.
I want to assure my hon. Friend and the residents of Sittingbourne that no asylum seekers will be placed in the hotel as a result of the contract between NASS and Accommodata until I have decided whether that is appropriate. However, I cannot stop Munro Properties or Accommodata doing work at the hotel if they want to.
My hon. Friend will know that the purpose of the induction centre concept is to make sure that, at the very earliest opportunity, we make strong contact with asylum seekers when they make their claims and establish a mechanism for that contact to continue We brief them fully on the asylum process and start to prepare them for the outcome that the vast majority of them will face—that their claim will not succeed. We are trying to bring order and rationality to the system and to increase the number of removals of people whose claims do not succeed.
It is envisaged that people will be in the induction centre for a very short time while their fingerprints are taken, their identities are established and they are issued with the new identity cards that we are using for asylum seekers. They will then be dispersed. They do not stay in the induction centre and, as my hon. Friend knows, Kent is not a dispersal area and we have no plans to alter that. There is no suggestion that asylum seekers staying at the Coniston hotel or anywhere designated as an
656
induction centre will be provided with longer-term accommodation in the area while their application is being considered.
My hon. Friend made a number of points about Accommodata as a company. According to my information, this Accommodata Ltd.—I shall shortly come to the other companies that share this name—is owned 50:50 by Shallan UK Ltd. and Zareno Ltd. Both companies provide loans to Accommodata at commercial rates of interest. I am providing this information, because I take my hon. Friend point's about NASS's due diligence appearing in the public domain. This information was revealed by NASS's checks on Accommodata. Accommodata, Shallan and Zareno are all registered in the UK. Accommodata was incorporated as a UK registered limited company on 16 February 2000. It acts as a property manager; it does not own accommodation facilities or associated services.
The background checking process for Accommodata's bid evaluation started in June 2002 when NASS placed advertisements for expressions of interest in providing hotel services in the south-east. In September 2002, along with nine other companies, Accommodata submitted a detailed tender in response to NASS's 94-page invitation to tender document, and NASS then undertook detailed commercial and technical evaluations. Each evaluation took place independently of the other. Accommodata scored very highly compared to the other bidders, and the Consiton proposal was found to be fully compliant in the technical evaluation. In addition, the company was required to provide details of its health and safety policy, insurances, track record and statements of its methods. References were demanded.
My hon. Friend may be familiar with Dun and Bradstreet reports, and they were obtained for Accommodata and for its parent companies. The invitation to tender document also required Accommodata to disclose whether, in the previous five years, any of its directors or the company secretary had been associated with a company that had gone into liquidation, any of them had been liable for bankruptcy proceedings or had been involved with any bankrupt company, whether the company had been subject to a termination of contract due to failure to fulfil contractual obligations and whether the company had been a defendant in a tribunal, civil court case or law suit relating to contractual performance or obligations to employees. The answer provided to all these questions was no, except that in reply to the first question—whether anyone had been associated with a company that had gone into liquidation—it was disclosed that one director, Mr. Somji, had been a director of Primedeck Enterprises, a subsidiary of Shallan, that had gone into liquidation in July 1998.
Accommodata was also required to submit full audited accounts and its bid was assessed with reference to profit, liquidity, the net worth of shareholders, audit opinion and risk rating. As a result of this analysis, it was judged to be a financially sound company. The evaluation methodology provided that, where a tenderer appeared to have breached company law or to have engaged in any other irregularity—for example, failing to submit accounts to Companies House—that would be ground for rejection of the tender unless there

657
were exceptional mitigating circumstances. None of this applies to Accommodata. Contact was also made with other parts of the Home Office to check for any other adverse experience of the company.
I am not here to argue the case for Accommodata; I am simply setting out the standard process of checking that is used throughout Government procurement. That process was applied to the company and I have outlined the results that it revealed. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) for his intervention outlining some of the views of voluntary organisations about the company. My hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey claimed that a case against Accommodata is pending in Leicester, but we know of no case pending against the company in Leicester, in any other local authority or by anyone else.
Mr. Pound: I apologise for interrupting my hon. Friend the Minister. However, I have a document that shows that, as she will be aware, Accommodata has operated the Leicester International hotel. The east midlands consortium for asylum seeker support offers an equally unequivocal endorsement of the company's operation of the hotel and of the service that it provides in that area. I will happily give her a copy of this document.
Beverley Hughes: I am doubly indebted to my hon. Friend. I thank him for that information and I would be very pleased to see a copy of the document.
I do not know whether this information is relevant but other companies have similar or identical names to Accommodata. There is an Accomodata, an hotel booking website, registered in Tadworth in Surrey, and a New Zealand-based hotel booking shares a similar name. A direct mail provider is based in Indianapolis and an American company provides services to ophthalmologists and similar professionals. Our contractor, Accommodata Ltd. has assured us that it has no links with any of the above companies, but I do not know whether some of the critics of this UK-based company are acting under the mistaken belief that all the companies are one and the same. I understand that Swale council's planning enforcement notice may have been sent to the Tadworth company by mistake.
I wish to make a few general points about our attempts to improve radically the asylum system. We are trying to bring into place facilities that will help us to do that in the way that I outlined earlier. In particular, we seek to keep in contact with asylum seekers. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North will know that many local authorities, including his own, are already responding by receiving significant numbers of asylum seekers through the dispersal system. I am grateful to them for that. It is right that we try to evaluate mechanisms for receiving and processing asylum claims.
658
I am grateful, too, to my hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey for his remarks about the willingness of the residents and the council in Sittingbourne to grapple with that problem. It seems that they simply do not like the proposal that the only substantial hotel in the town should be used for this purpose because residents could not use it as they do now. That point was made at the meeting that I had with local residents and councillors, as was a promise that details would be provided of more suitable accommodation in the area which we could consider. Freda Chaloner, the head of NASS, raised the same point at a public meeting.
In fact, I have to tell my hon. Friend, with some disappointment, that neither the council nor anybody else has come forward with an alternative in the area which might be used to accommodate asylum seekers. It is important that we find accommodation in the southeast, because this is where many people enter the country. It is vital that, metaphorically speaking, we take hold of them at that very early point, and that is why we need induction centres in London and the south-east.
I want to involve local authorities much more in the process of managing asylum seekers, and many authorities tell me that they want to be more involved. However, when we put the question to them, we find in practice that concrete offers of help and support do not appear. We gave other regional consortiums and the local authorities involved in them the chance to be involved in the provision of regionally-based induction centres because local authorities were telling us that that is what they wanted. To date, the offers that we have received amount to 685 bed spaces, when we need a total throughout the country of about 3,500.
Unless local authorities are willing not only to say that they want to be involved and to co-operate but to translate that commitment into practice, NASS and the Government have no alternative but to seek accommodation from private sector providers such as Acommodata. I am speaking to local authorities in general when I say, "We are in your hands." I want to work with local authorities, and there are many reasons connected with their responsibility for local communities why we ought to have been working with them more.
The offer is there, but if it is not taken up by Swale borough council and others, we must provide this accommodation through the private sector, and we will. If Swale council has some alternatives, I would be grateful if it suggested them. Today I asked my official who is responsible for the induction centre programme to make renewed contact with Swale council, which has not, I am told, so far responded to her requests of recent weeks for meetings about this matter. If we are not to use the Coniston hotel, the council should allow us to consider any alternatives in the area.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes past Eight o'clock.

CABINET OFFICE

  Central Office of Information
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will place in the Library a copy of the Service Delivery Agreement for the Central Office of Information; and if he will make a statement. [99391]

  Mr. Alexander
  A copy of the current Central Office of Information (COI) Service Delivery Agreement (SDA), which was published as part of the Spending Review 2000, is already available from the House Libraries and on-line at the COI's website:.http://www.coi.gov.uk/aboutus/sda.html

  However, the COI is currently in the process of revising its Framework Document and preparing its Annual Business Plan for 2003–04. It is anticipated that the COI will announce and publish its revised Service Delivery Agreement (SDA) at the same time as announcing its annual performance targets to Parliament.

  The current timetable for the COI to publish its annually agreed external performance targets, which will be done by means of a Written Ministerial Statement, is April 2003. Copies of these will then be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Official Vehicles
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office (1) how many official vehicles have been at the disposal of(a) the Government, (b) the Official Opposition and (c) the Liberal Democrats in each year since 1995; and at what cost; [100130]

  (2) what the total cost has been for official vehicles for (a) the Prime Minister's Office, (b) the Official Opposition Leader's Office and (c) the Office of the Leader of the Liberal Democrats in each year since 1995. [100131]

  Mr. Alexander
  The responsibility for the provision of ministerial cars and drivers has been delegated under the terms of the Framework Document to the Government Car Despatch Agency. I have asked its Chief Executive Mr. Nick Matheson to write to the hon. Member. Copies of his letter will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Written Questions
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many named day written questions were tabled to the Office between 15 October 2002 and 24 February 2003; how many that received a holding answer were given a substantive answer(a) within three days, (b) within seven days, (c) within 14 days,
  776W
  (d) within 28 days and (e) over 28 days later; and what procedures are in place to monitor performance on answering (i) parliamentary questions and (ii) ministerial letters.[99458]

  Mr. Alexander
  Seventy five named day questions were tabled to the Cabinet Office between 15 October 2002 and 24 February 2003, of these nine had holding replies. All were answered within three parliamentary sitting days.

  Cabinet Office parliamentary questions are recorded on a parliamentary database, and progress of all parliamentary questions are monitored closely.

  As far as ministerial correspondence is concerned, the Cabinet Office, on an annual basis, publishes a report to Parliament on performance of departments in replying to ministerial correspondence. The Report for 2001 was published on 24 May 2002, column 674W. The Report for 2002 will be published in due course.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Inland Waterways
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans there are to appoint an independent regulator to oversee the interests of inland waterway users. [100206]

  Alun Michael
  I am not convinced of the need for a regulator. British Waterways and other navigation authorities are already subject to the general law against anti-competitive practice. I know that the Inland Waterways Association has written to British Waterways suggesting that it would be preferable to set up a new appeal procedure to deal with waterway managers' decisions. I understand that British Waterways is willing to consider this suggestion and I think that it should be fully explored. It may be possible to extend any agreed arrangements to other navigation authorities.

  Bovine Tuberculosis
  Lembit öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many confirmed incidents of bovine tuberculosis were identified in the parliamentary constituencies of(a) Montgomeryshire and (b) Brecon and Radnorshire, in each quarter in (i) 2000, (ii) 2001 and(iii) 2002; and if she will make a statement. [99308]

  Mr. Morley
  The number of confirmed incidents of bovine tuberculosis in(a) Montgomeryshire and (b) Brecon and Radnorshire, broken down as requested is shown in the table.

  Care must be taken in making comparisons with previous years' figures. The disruption to the TB programme caused by FMD, and the rolling nature of the testing programme means that we are now effectively catching up on two years' testing. Clearance of overdue testing has been targeted on those herds at higher risk first, therefore it will not be possible to interpret the data properly until the testing backlog has been cleared.
  777W

  TB breakdown statistics

  Quarter

  2000

  2001

  2002

  (a)Number of confirmed incidents of TB in Brecon and Radnorshire

  Q1

  8

  8

  15

  Q2

  4

  1

  13

  Q3

  4

  0

  13

  Q4

  4

  4

  26

  Total

  20

  13

  67

  (b)Number of confirmed incidents of TB in Montgomeryshire

  Q1

  0

  3

  11

  Q2

  0

  1

  4

  Q3

  1

  1

  1

  Q4

  1

  11

  5

  Total

  2

  16

  21

  Diffuse Pollution
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many incidents of diffuse pollution have been recorded in each year since 1997; and how many resulted in(a) prosecutions and (b) fines. [99250]

  Mr. Morley
  In its records of pollution incidents, the Environment Agency has identified 4,779 incidents since 1999 where urban or rural land run-off was the likely cause and which have been attributed to diffuse sources.

  However, by its very nature diffuse pollution often does not manifest itself as an identifiable incident. Much diffuse pollution occurs through repeated low level leaching of pollutants from land or run-off from surfaces that has a cumulative impact on water quality. So, records of pollution incidents only pick up a small part of the problem of diffuse pollution.

  It has not proved possible to collate any information on prosecutions and fines in relation to diffuse pollution for this answer.

  Most current legislation relating to water pollution is addressed at point sources, such as discharges of industrial effluent or specific pollution incidents, and was not designed to prevent or control more gradual diffuse pollution. This is why the Government have proposed the creation of a new statutory power to prevent and control diffuse pollution as part of action to transpose the provisions of the water framework directive into domestic legislation. This proposal was included in the "Second Consultation Paper on the Implementation of the EC Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)", published in October 2002.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what changes have taken place or are planned related to tracing the sources of diffuse pollution.[99251]

  Mr. Morley
  In the past tracing sources of diffuse water pollution has been done as part of catchment campaigns by the Environment Agency to improve compliance with river quality objectives. Such campaigns have been run in various catchments across the country.

  As part of action to implement the water framework directive, a more comprehensive approach will be required. The directive requires that reviews are undertaken of the impact of human activity on the
  778W
  status of surface waters and on groundwater, including the identification of significant diffuse source pollution. The Government have proposed that a specific duty should be placed on the Environment Agency to carry out such reviews. This proposal is set out in the "Second Consultation Paper on the Implementation of the EC Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC)", published in October 2002.

  Drinking Water
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her estimate is of the number of households using water filter devices for providing drinking water in the UK in each year since 1992. [99231]

  Mr Morley
  The Department has no direct responsibility for domestic water filters and does not compile or keep records of numbers of users or of sales. Based on information that British water has provided, however, a best available estimated figure for annual sales of plumbed-in water filters is between 20,000–25,000 during the period 1991–2001.

  We have no information on numbers of households using jug water filters.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the implications for the environment of adding fluoride to drinking water. [99203]

  Mr. Morley
  A review of the effect of fluoride on a range of aquatic life was carried out for the Environment Agency when deriving a non-statutory environmental quality standard (EQS) for fluoride in water, which was published in 2000. The review drew on research carried out by a range of recognised scientific laboratories and available data indicated that effects on aquatic life from fluoride occur at concentrations between 9.0–350mg/l. Where fluoridation schemes are in place, fluoride is added to maintain a concentration of 1.0 mg/1 in drinking water which is well below these levels. Any discharges will be further diluted upon entry to the aquatic environment through the process of collection and treatment of waste water.

  A copy of the review has been deposited in the Library of the House.

  Fair Trade Products
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her policy is on the purchase for departmental use, of fair trade products. [99241]

  Alun Michael
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 9 December,Official Report, column 92W. The Government are committed to supporting ethical trading wherever possible within the boundaries set by the public procurement rules and provides significant support to the Fair Trade Foundation's efforts in promoting the supply and marketing of fair trade products.

  This is reflected from Defra's Green Guide for Buyers, http://www.sustainable-development.gov.uk/sdig/improving/partf/greenbuy/index.htm, and the

  779W
  work that departmental officials are undertaking with Defra's catering contractors to the purchasing approach within my private office. In consultation with them Defra has produced a catering action sheet that, among other things, calls for promotion of fair trade or ethically produced food by, where appropriate, reflecting such needs in non-discriminatory specifications in line with user requirements. Defra has been negotiating with its catering contractors to put fair trade tea and coffee on their menus and to supply such drinks whenever official hospitality is provided. These arrangements should be in place shortly in Defra canteens in the following locations: Guildford, Reading, York, London and the Central Science Laboratory.

  Foxhound Packs
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many foxhound packs there are in England and Wales; and how many hunts have taken place in each of the last five years. [100361]

  Alun Michael
  According to the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Hunting with Dogs in England and Wales (The Burns Report), published in June 2000, there were 175 foxhunting packs registered with the Masters of Foxhounds Association in England and Wales. There were also nine fell packs registered with, or affiliated to, the Central Committee of Fell Packs. In addition, there were seven packs of harriers, registered with the Association of Masters of Harriers and Beagles which mainly hunt foxes. There were also another two harrier packs which were registered to hunt foxes.

  The position in Wales was found to be less clear. There were 48 foxhunting packs registered with the Federation of Welsh Packs which included 27 Welsh based packs affiliated to the Masters of Foxhounds Association, and 30 registered with the Welsh Farmers' Fox Control Association. At the time of publication of the Burns Report these two bodies had been formed fairly recently and represented only a proportion of the total number of packs in Wales. Some estimates put the number of unregistered packs in Wales at two or three times those of registered packs (Burns, paragraphs 2.10–2.11).

  The Burns Report stated that there was a total of some 15,000 meets per season (paragraph 2.12). This figure would have been significantly less in 2001 when all hunting was suspended in England and Wales due to the outbreak of foot and mouth disease.

  Hospitality
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her Department's hospitality budget(a) is in 2002–03 and (b) was in each of the last three years; and how much was left unspent at the end of each financial year. [99515]

  Alun Michael
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) on 24 February 2003;Official Report, column 85W.

  Illegal Meat Imports
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to the answer of 6 February 2003,Official Report, column 380W, what additional resources the Government are making available at ports to prevent the importation of substandard meat and bushmeat into the UK. [98372]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government have made available a total of £25 million over the next three financial years to tackle illegal imports from outside the European Union of any meat, other animal products and plant products. Following the Cabinet Office review of enforcement structures, final decisions on the allocation of this money will be made once consultations with HM Customs and Excise and the FSA have concluded.

  Action against illegal imports is not limited to substandard meat and bushmeat, nor will it be limited to ports and airports. It is in addition to the requirement to pre-notify all commercial imports of meat and products of animal origin and present them to a Border Inspection Post for veterinary checks.

  In the current financial year, additional measures have been introduced at ports and airports to tackle illegal imports. Additional temporary agency staff have been recruited to carry out checks to detect smuggled goods—teams of six are based at our major airports and teams of two at major seaports. We are also paying for additional checks through overtime elsewhere. Additional inspection resources have also been provided through the detector dog pilot, and a publicity campaign which has targeted both ports and airports and travellers before they leave.

  Water Pollution
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what percentage of significant non-water industrial discharges to rivers were reviewed in 2002 by the Environment Agency, broken down by region; and if she will make a statement. [99204]

  Mr. Morley
  The information shows the percentage of consents for significant non-water company industrial discharges to rivers reviewed by the Environment Agency (the Agency) regions in 2002. Consents are issued under the Water Resources Act 1991 (as amended by the Environment Act 1995). Significant discharges are defined by the Agency as consented discharges of more than five cubic metres per day, some smaller discharges where the type and location of discharge requires monitoring will also be included.

  Percentage

  Anglian

  11

  Midlands

  7

  North East

  11

  North West

  6

  Southern

  7

  South West

  3

  Thames

  5

  Overall percentage of consents reviewed in England = 8
  781W
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what levels of endocrine-disrupting chemicals are deemed to be safe(a) at point of emission and (b) within water courses under (i) UK, (ii) EU and (iii) International law; how many water courses there are where the level of endocrine disrupting chemicals exceeded levels deemed safe in the last year for which figures are available; and where they are located. [99238]

  Mr. Morley
  The Environment Agency for England and Wales currently refers to its own non-statutory standards of 1 microgram per litre as an annual average, and 2.5 micrograms per litre as a maximum allowable concentration, for nonylphenol and octylphenol for the protection of the aquatic environment where appropriate for regulating discharges to water courses. These values were detennined in relation to the substances' wider ecotoxicological impact, although data on their endocrine disrupting properties were taken into account.

  Under the EU Community Strategy on Endocrine Disrupting Substances, and the Oslo Paris Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North East Atlantic (OSPAR), a number of potentially endocrine disrupting substances have been identified for which an assessment strategy is currently being developed. The European Commission is expected to propose later this year EQS and emission standards for certain substances on the Priority List of Dangerous Substances under Article 16 of the Water Framework Directive which are potential endocrine disrupters.

  Nonylphenol ethoxylates and octylphenols are produced at one site only in the UK where monitoring for nonylphenol showed that the Environment Agency standard was not exceeded in 2002. The Environment Agency does not routinely monitor these substances nationally. Other substances, such as ethinyl oestradiol and oestradiol, have been studied in specific water courses and the results of those findings are currently the subject of risk assessment.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the number of(a) streams and (b) rivers with high microbial loading in each year since 1997; and where each is located. [99252]

  Mr. Morley
  The Environment Agency does not have any statutory obligations to control the microbial quality of freshwater streams and rivers to specific environmental standards and does not routinely monitor the microbial quality of these waters.

  Limited monitoring is undertaken as part of research to investigate causes of non-compliance with bathing and shellfish water standards.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many legal actions have been begun against(a) water companies and (b) other companies in respect of discharges of endocrine disrupting chemicals in each year since 1992; how many in each case resulted in successful prosecutions; and what fines were levied as a result. [99280]
  782W
  Mr. Morley
  The Environment Agency has not initiated prosecutions against any companies specifically as a result of endocrine disrupting impacts on the environment. Prosecutions may have been initiated in relation to substances which are potential endocrine disrupters but, owing to the large number of such substances and the level of uncertainty surrounding many of them, figures would be difficult to compile and would involve disproportionate cost.

  Water Services
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the average monthly cost to consumers is of(a) water services and (b) sewerage services in each region (i) in total and (ii) broken down by those who are (A) metered and (B) unmetered. [99243]

  Mr. Morley
  The following is the information for household customers of each water and sewerage company in England in 2002–03.

  Table 1: Unmetered water tariffs for household customers, 2002–03

  £

  Water and sewerage companies

  Average monthly charge

  Anglian

  11.1

  Northumbrian:

  Essex and Suffolk

  10.3

  Northumbrian

  7.4

  Severn Trent

  9.4

  South West

  10.9

  Southern

  7.6

  Thames

  8.8

  United Utilities

  9.3

  Wessex

  10.0

  Yorkshire:

  Yorkshire

  9.1

  York

  7.7

  Water only companies:

  Bournemouth and West Hampshire

  8.7

  Bristol

  9.3

  Cambridge

  8.3

  Dee Valley

  9.8

  Folkestone and Dover

  11.3

  Mid Kent

  11.1

  Portsmouth

  6.2

  South East

  10.5

  South Staffordshire

  7.3

  Sutton and East Surrey

  10.3

  Tendring Hundred

  14.6

  Three Valleys:

  North Surrey

  9.1

  Three Valleys

  9.9

  Table 2: Unmetered sewerage tariffs for household customers, 2002–03

  £

  Average monthly charge

  Anglian

  0.0

  Northumbrian

  0.0

  Severn Trent

  0.0

  South West

  0.0

  Southern

  0.0

  783W

  Table 2: Unmetered sewerage tariffs for household customers, 2002–03

  £

  Average monthly charge

  Thames

  0.0

  United Utilities

  0.0

  Wessex

  0.0

  Yorkshire

  0.00

  Table 3: Metered water tariffs for household customers, 2002–03

  £

  Water and sewerage companies

  Average monthly charge

  Anglian

  7.8

  Northumbrian:

  Essex and Suffolk

  7.0

  Northumbrian

  6.3

  Severn Trent

  7.6

  South West

  7.4

  Southern

  7.1

  Thames

  7.8

  United Utilities

  8.3

  Wessex

  7.9

  Yorkshire:

  Yorkshire

  7.3

  York

  6.3

  Water only companies:

  Bournemouth and West Hampshire

  7.8

  Bristol

  7.2

  Cambridge

  6.8

  Dee Valley

  6.1

  Folkestone and Dover

  8.6

  Mid Kent

  8.3

  Portsmouth

  7.0

  South East

  9.0

  South Staffordshire

  6.8

  Sutton and East Surrey

  9.1

  Tendring Hundred

  10.1

  Three Valleys:

  North Surrey

  6.6

  Three Valleys

  7.0

  Table 4: Metered sewerage tariffs for household customers, 2002–03

  £

  Water and sewerage companies

  Average monthly charge

  Anglian

  10.8

  Northumbrian

  8.4

  Severn Trent

  7.4

  South West

  12.1

  Southern

  10.9

  Thames

  6.9

  United Utilities

  9.5

  Wessex

  9.3

  Yorkshire

  9.6

  784W

  Table 5: Metered and unmetered water tariffs for household Customers, 2002–03

  £

  Water and sewerage companies

  Average monthly charge

  Anglian

  9.4

  Northumbrian:

  Essex and Suffolk

  9.3

  Northumbrian

  7.3

  Severn Trent

  9.0

  South West

  9.6

  Southern

  7.5

  Thames

  8.7

  United Utilities

  9.1

  Wessex

  9.4

  Yorkshire:

  Yorkshire

  8.7

  York

  7.5

  Water only companies:

  Bournemouth and West Hampshire

  8.4

  Bristol

  8.8

  Cambridge

  7.5

  Dee Valley

  8.7

  Folkestone and Dover

  10.4

  Mid Kent

  10.6

  Portsmouth

  6.3

  South East

  10.1

  South Staffordshire

  7.2

  Sutton and East Surrey

  10.1

  Tendring Hundred

  12.2

  Three Valleys:

  North Surrey

  8.6

  Three Valleys

  9.3

  Table 6: Metered and unmetered sewerage tariffs for household customers, 2002–03

  £

  Average monthly charge

  Anglian

  13.1

  Northumbrian

  9.4

  Severn Trent

  8.0

  South West

  17.6

  Southern

  12.7

  Thames

  7.8

  United Utilities

  10.2

  Wessex

  11.1

  Yorkshire

  9.3

  Water Supply
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much water was supplied by water companies to consumers in the last year for which figures are available; what this represents per household; and what percentage of tap water supplied is estimated to be used for drinking purposes. [99275]

  Mr. Morley
  In 2001–02 a total of 8,622 million litres of water per day were delivered to households. This represents an average consumption of 150 litres per person per day. Further details are contained in the Ofwat report "Security of supply, leakage and the
  785W
  efficient use of water 2001–02", a copy of which is in the Library of the House. It is estimated that around 4 per cent. of water supplied to households is used for drinking and cooking purposes.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much water was used by(a) domestic, (b) business and (c) industry sectors, in each year since 1992; and what the total water use was in each of these years. [99276]

  Mr. Morley
  As a proportion of water put into the public supply, about 56 per cent. is delivered to domestic customers, 14 per cent. to businesses and 11 per cent. to industrial users. Total water use since 1992, shown in megalitres per day, is as follows:

  Year

  Megalitres per day

  1992–93

  10,807

  1993–94

  10,686

  1994–95

  10,799

  1995–96

  11,327

  1996–97

  11,117

  1997–98

  12,511

  1998–99

  12,208

  1999–00

  12,370

  2000–01

  12,333

  2001–02

  12,493

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many(a) homes and (b) businesses are fitted with water saving devices, with particular reference to (i) hippos and (ii) cistern and flush controls. [99277]

  Mr. Morley
  Since 1999, 840,287 cistern devices, including Hippos, have been installed in households by water companies or their customers. Since 1996, 29,542 water audits of commercial premises have been completed by water companies, but no data are available on specific measures implemented as a result. These activities were carried out as part of water companies' legal duty to promote the efficient use of water by their customers. Further details are contained in the Ofwat report 'Security of supply, leakage and the efficient use of water 2001–02', a copy of which is in the Library of the House.

PUBLIC ACCOUNTS COMMISSION

  Saudi Arabian Airforce
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Chairman of the Public Accounts Commission where copies of the 1992 National Audit Office report on the Saudi Arabian Airforce Project are located. [98181]

  Mr. Alan Williams
  Copies of the 1992 National Audit Office Report on the Saudi Arabian Airforce Project—known as Project. Al Yamamah—are held by the National Audit Office and the Ministry of Defence.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Domestic Violence
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Solicitor General if she will make a statement on the role of the Crown Prosecution Service in domestic violence cases. [99404]

  The Solicitor-General
  I will write to my hon. Friend with my answer shortly.

TRANSPORT

  Aircraft Seating Arrangements
  Mr. Roy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with scheduled tour operators in relation to seating arrangements on aircrafts over the last 12 months. [99984]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We have had no specific discussions with airlines over seating arrangements on aircraft, but we have been in close and regular contact with airlines in relation to the information they provide to the public on seat pitch and width.

  Airlines
  Mr. David
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to improve protection for individual airline passengers against the failure of scheduled airlines. [99913]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This is not a matter for Government. Some passengers are protected by virtue of the way they pay for their tickets. For others, insurance against scheduled airline failure is readily available.

  Air Transport (Insurance)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the viability of creating a third party insurance cover relating to British air transport. [100052]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Following 11 September 2001, when commercial insurance cover was partially withdrawn, the Government provided temporary third-party war risk insurance cover for UK airlines and other air service providers. Such intervention is a form of state aid and the terms upon which the UK, and other EU member states, assisted their aviation industry during the crisis was strictly regulated by the European Commission. The Government discontinued their support for third party war risk insurance on 31 October 2002, and we see no case for further intervention.

  Airport Development
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which airport development options assessed at SERAS Stages 2 and 3 were considered by the SERAS consultants to meet private sector funding criteria in terms of an acceptable internal rate of return. [99522]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The financial appraisal undertaken in the SERAS study indicates that, using airport charges at the time the analysis was undertaken, achieving a high target rate of return (12.5 per cent.) might be difficult for
  787W
  any major airport development. Chapter 15 of the Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom: South East, a second edition of which was published on 27 February (including some minor revisions to this chapter) discusses how major new airport capacity might be funded.

  The principal results of the financial appraisal of different airport options are presented in the "SERAS Stage two Appraisal Findings report (section
  14.4)."

  ATOL Protection
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will extend the requirement to provide ATOL protection to all airlines and booking facilities offering bundled flight and accommodation services; and if he will make a statement. [R] [100261]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government have no plans to extend the requirement to provide ATOL protection in this way.

  Some airlines selling air tickets through the Internet provide links to other services such as accommodation and car hire. Purchasing such services by this method involves separate contracts with, and separate payments to, different companies for the individual services. This does not constitute a package under European law. It is for individual consumers to decide whether to purchase disaggregated services in this way or to purchase a package deal offered by an ATOL holder.

  Central Railway
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the Government's policy is on the provision of public money(a) to support the Central Railway project and (b) to meet claims for compensation arising out of the Central Railway project. [99490]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Central Railway's proposal is for an entirely privately funded project. We understand that it includes provisions for compensation of property owners in the event of compulsory purchase

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Vehicle Certification Agency

  Total staff

  80

  86

  87

  92

  100

  Inspectors

  41

  43

  44

  47

  49

  Maritime and Coastguard Agency

  Total staff

  986

  1,000

  1,064

  1,024.5

  1,067

  Surveyors/inspectors

  160

  160

  149

  157

  162

  Driving Standards Agency

  Total staff

  1,785

  1,637

  1,715

  1,742

  1,851

  Examiners/inspectors

  1,202

  1,119

  1,201

  1,196

  1,302

  Where part of an employee's duties includes inspection they have not been counted in the second row. Only dedicated inspectors are shown.

  Child Pedestrian Training
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on progress of the pilot network of child pedestrian training schemes in primary schools in deprived areas. [99769]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Projects are being rolled out in three tranches. The first 38 English projects were awarded to 38 local authorities in September 2001. The next 39 projects were awarded to 36 local authorities in September 2002. Each project will run for three years.

  Invitations to bid for the final round of projects will be issued shortly.

  By the end of the summer term 2002, 703 of the volunteers who themselves train children had undertaken their own training. Also, in total, 3,882 children have received some training with an average of 105 children per project and 24 per school.

  Congestion Charging
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what(a) guidance has been issued and (b) requests have been made by the Department to the DVLA with regard to congestion charging over the last 12 months; [99875]

  (2) what discussions he and his Department have had with the DVLA regarding congestion charging in London in the last year; and if he will make a statement. [99767]

  Mr. Jamieson
  DVLA has worked closely with Transport for London to develop the systems needed to meet the legal obligation to supply information from its records to support congestion charging. My Department has asked DVLA for regular reports on progress throughout last year to ensure that the Agency meets its obligations.

  Departmental Agency Staff
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many staff were employed by the(a) Vehicle Certification Agency, (b) Maritime and Coast Guard Agency and (c) Driving Standards Agency, in each year since 1997; and how many were inspection staff in each case. [100016]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The average number of employees and of dedicated inspection staff during each accounting year was:

  Driver Fatigue
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what his estimate is of the number of people
  789W
  killed in road crashes caused by driver fatigue on (a) motorways, (b) trunk roads and (c) other roads in the last five years. [99636]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Research studies indicate that driver sleepiness accounts for 15–20 per cent. of accidents on monotonous roads, especially motorways and for about 10 per cent. of all accidents on the road network in Great Britain.

  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy to promote the erection of tiredness kills signs on trunk roads as well as on motorways. [99637]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Signs have been provided on the approaches to service areas on motorways to remind drivers of the need for regular breaks, because opportunities for drivers to stop on motorways are limited. This is not generally the case on all-purpose trunk roads. We have no plans for the erection of additional signs on approaches to trunk road services, unless there is a specific traffic management need at a particular location.

  Future Integrated Transport LINK Programme
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what research has been conducted into the Future Integrated Transport LINK Programme; and if he will place a copy of findings in the Library; [99770]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Future Integrated Transport LINK Programme. [99771]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Future Integrated Transport Programme provided part funding to academic/ industrial collaborative research projects under the Government's LINK framework. From the launch of the programme in September 1999 until its closure to applications in 2002, the Department for Transport and the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council offered support to 18 projects. The LINK projects supported are:Pedestrian Activity Measurement in the Transport Environment;
  The Demand for Public Transport—a Practical Guide;
  UK Marine Motorways Study;
  Integrating Transport and eCommerce in Logistics Supply Chains:
  Rapid Construction of Passenger Interchanges;
  Assessing the Potential for Rationalising Road Freight Operations;
  Integration of Multi-Modal Reliability in the Assessment of Transport Schemes;
  Monitoring of High Occupancy Vehicles;
  Inclusive Transport Environment: Colour Design, Lighting and Visual Impairment;
  Measuring Demand for an Integrated Inter-urban Public Transport Network;
  Evaluating the Success of Urban Cycle Networks;
  Enhanced Rail Contribution by Improved Reliability;
  Improving the Efficiency of Travel by Improved Household Activity Scheduling;
  Co-ordinating Individual Action Programmes in Rural Transport Management;
  A Model to Assess Public Transport Reliability;
  Multi-Objective Signal Control for Urban Environments;
  Computer Based Tools for Streetscape Design and Reallocation;
  Dynamic Assistive Information System.
  790W
  Fuller descriptions of the objectives of these projects are available on the Department's website. As individual projects are completed between 2003 and 2007, summary results will also become available on the website. The industrial and academic partners undertake publication of the results of the individual projects.

  Highways Agency
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many(a) staff and (b) inspection staff were employed by the Highways Agency in each year since 1997. [99760]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The numbers of civil servants employed by the Highways Agency on the 1 January 2003 for the past seven years are set out in the following table:

  Year

  Number of civil servants

  1997

  1,628

  1998

  1,597

  1999

  1,591

  2000

  1,634

  2001

  1,647

  2002

  1,668

  2003

  1,720

  The Highways Agency has not employed any inspection staff during this period. These duties are carried out on behalf of the Agency by their managing agent contractors.

  Hospitality
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how often Ministers in his Department have received hospitality in restaurants from outside groups; [99581]

  (2) what criteria Ministers in his Department use when determining whether to offer hospitality in restaurants to interest groups at public expense; and if he will make a statement; [99504]

  (3) what hospitality has been offered at public expense in the last 12 months, by each Minister in his Department to outside interest groups, broken down by (a) restaurant, (b) recipient and (c) cost in each case. [99505]

  Mr. Jamieson
  All offers of hospitality are made in accordance with published departmental guidance on financial procedures and propriety, based on the principles set out in "Government Accounting". The giving and receiving of hospitality is conducted fully in accordance with the guidance set out in the "Ministerial Code", and "Guidance on Contacts with Outside Interest Groups Including Lobbyists". The detailed information requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Liquefied Petroleum Gas
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made on allowing motor vehicles powered by LPG to travel through the Channel Tunnel; and if he will make a statement. [99403]
  791W
  Mr. Jamieson
  Eurotunnel's original applications for operating certificates excluded the carriage of LPG and dual-fuelled vehicles. It is for the company to come forward with proposals to extend the range of its services to include these vehicles; Eurotunnel has been keeping its policy under review. If the company does seek to extend the scope of its services to include these vehicles, it will first need the agreement of the Channel Tunnel Intergovernmental Commission, acting on the advice of the independent binational Channel Tunnel Safety Authority, to its proposals.

  M6
  Mr. David Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what environmental impact assessments he(a) has studied, (b) has commissioned and (c) intends to commission regarding the proposed widening of the M6 motorway between junctions 11 and 20; [99368]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the effect of the opening of the M6 toll road in 2004 on the volumes of traffic using the M6 motorway between junctions 11 and 20; [99370]

  (3) what proposals he has for widening the M6 motorway between junctions 6 and 11. [99369]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The environmental assessments carried out in the mid 1990s, at the time of the previous widening proposals, are currently being reviewed and updated by the Highways Agency with a view to a widening scheme between Junctions 11 and 20 being included in the Government's Targeted Programme of Improvements. Should such a scheme be accepted into the Programme as a result, a full environmental impact assessment would be prepared to reflect the new proposals.

  The effects of the opened M6 Toll Road on M6 traffic levels were assessed when the toll road was being planned. More recently, the West Midlands to North West Conurbation Multi Modal Study, which gave rise to the present widening proposals between Junctions 11 and 20, also took account of the implications of the toll road opening. The effects will be evaluated in more detail as the widening proposals aredeveloped.

  There are no proposals to widen the M6 between Junctions 6 and 11.

  Marinair
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his answer of 27 January 2003,Official Report, column 525W, what estimate was made of total costs of the former Marinair scheme, during the 'Preliminary Site Search of Options for New Airport Capacity to Serve the South East and East of England'. [94781]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The "Preliminary Site Search of Options for New Airport Capacity to Serve the South East and East of England" (published June 2001 and available in the Libraries of the House) estimated the total costs of the former Marinair scheme at nearly £20 billion pounds.
  792W
  The estimate was based on a desk-top study that reviewed proposals submitted by supporters of Marinair in the early 1990s.

  Mobile Phones (Accidents)
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent research he has conducted about the number of(a) fatalities and (b) serious injuries arising from accidents in which a driver involved was using a mobile phone; and if he will make a statement. [100389]

  Mr. Jamieson
  A wide body of research provides clear evidence of an increased risk of an accident when using a mobile phone while driving. A recent report, "The risk of using a mobile phone while driving", commissioned by the Department from the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, contains a review of such research. It also summarises 19 cases reported in the UK press between 1988 and 2001 where a death could be attributed to a driver using a mobile phone. The report may be viewed at www.rospa.com/pdfs/road/mobiles/report.pdf.

  Two research projects currently under way will help to establish the likely numbers of road traffic accidents involving mobile phones. One involves in-depth analysis of police fatal road accident reports that identify distraction as a possible contributory factor. A report is expected in the summer. The other involves on-the-spot studies of accidents in order to improve the understanding of the influences of human involvement, vehicle and highway design on accident causation and injury mechanisms. A database is expected to be available from the autumn.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many named day written questions were tabled to the Department between 15 October 2002 and 24 February 2003; how many that received a holding answer were given a substantive answer(a) within three days, (b) within seven days, (c) within 14 days, (d) within 28 days and (e) over 28 days later; and what procedures the Department has in place to monitor performance on answering (i) parliamentary questions and (ii) ministerial letters. [99427]

  Mr. Jamieson
  In the period 15 October 2002 to 24 February 2003, 318 named day written questions were tabled to my Department, of which 77 (24 per cent.) received a holding answer.

  Of the 77 that received a holding answer, 65 (84 per cent.) received a substantive answer within three days; 10 (13 per cent.) received a substantive answer between four and seven days; and two (3 per cent.) received a substantive answer between eight and 14 days.

  The effective handling of parliamentary questions and ministerial correspondence is an issue to which I, and ministerial colleagues, attach great importance. The Department has a Service Delivery Agreement Target of responding to 76 per cent. of ministerial correspondence within 15 days and 90 per cent. within 20 days. My Department operates an electronic tracking system to monitor ministerial correspondence and parliamentary

  793W
  question performance. The Cabinet Office, on an annual basis, publishes a report to Parliament on performance of Departments in replying to ministerial correspondence.

  Private Sector Businesses (Forms)
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the forms that his Department requires private sector businesses to complete and return. [98091]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The list of all such forms, as recorded by the Department's Forms Gatekeeper and Survey Control Unit, has been placed in the Libraries of the House. The list makes no distinction between those that are compulsory or voluntary.

  Public Service Agreement
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library the technical note underlying his Public Service Agreement; and if he will make a statement. [99393]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The technical note will be published shortly, and a copy will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Railway Property (Birds)
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what his Department's estimate is of the cost to(a) local authorities, (b) train operating companies and (c) Network Rail of cleaning costs relating to the presence of birds on railway property in the last 12 months. [99774]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My Department has made no such estimate.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport who is responsible for(a) erecting netting, (b) erecting deterrents and (c) cleaning costs, relating to the presence of birds on railway property, with specific reference to bridges over public highways. [99775]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Network Rail advises that it is under no statutory duty to prevent the fouling of its structures by pigeons or other birds; and that it falls to the local highway authority to maintain the public footways and highways under the company's bridges. In specific cases of the establishment of a statutory nuisance under one of its bridges, the costs of pigeon proofing the structure and cleaning the public footway may be shared equally by agreement between Network Rail and the local authority. The company seeks to work with local authorities to tackle pigeon nuisance and to assess alternative pigeon deterrents to netting.

  Railways
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps the Government is taking(a) to ensure better value for public money from the railways and (b) to prevent rail costs increasing; what is being done to limit the number of contactors and sub-contractors working on the railways; and if he will make a statement. [100297]
  794W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority's second Strategic Plan, published in January, sets out the nature of the challenges and the steps underway to control costs and improve value for money. The contractual arrangements for maintaining and renewing the railways are a matter for Network Rail and its customers.

  School Transport
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the recommendations to his Department from the School Travel Advisory Group; and what progress has been made towards their implementation in each case. [99768]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The recommendations of the "School Travel Advisory Group are set out in the "School Travel Advisory Group Report 1998–1999". Copies of the report have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  The recommendations for my Department were for school travel issues to be included in local transport plans; better road safety education; improved enforcement of speed, parking and other traffic regulations; better cycle storage facilities and lockers at schools; affordable bus travel for all children in compulsory education; and special training for bus drivers working with children.

  We have asked local authorities to include a school travel strategy, explain how they will work with individual schools to develop school travel plans (STPs) and include targets for reducing the number of children who travel to school by car in their local transport plans. To help local authorities we have provided 57 bursaries to enable them to employ staff to work with schools to develop STPs, and a further 17 for them to employ staff to work jointly with schools and workplaces. Since May 2001 we have been providing up to five days of free site-specific consultancy advice to schools wanting to develop a STP.

  We have published free best practice guidance on developing and implementing STPs for both local authorities and schools and a school travel resource pack for schools. (These and other resources are also available on our web site at http://www.localtransport/schooltravel/index.htm). We have held free seminars to disseminate these guidesand to promote partnership working between local highway authorities, Healthy Schools co-ordinators, School Sport co-ordinators, bus operators and others.

  To improve child road safety we have published a range of booklets for children and the child road safety pages of our web site include lesson plans for primary and secondary school teachers designed to tie in with the national curriculum; these can be found at http:// wuav.databases.dtt.gov.uk/lessonpians/. We are also spending £10 million over five years for local authorities to pilot a network of child pedestrian training schemes in deprived areas.

  To reduce child deaths and injuries we have asked local authorities to pay particular attention in preparing their local road safety strategies to roads around schools and the routes children use to get to school; we have asked them to plan specific measures such as 20 mph zones with traffic calming and safe crossing places if traffic calming is not appropriate.
  795W
  In recent local transport plan settlements we have allocated increased levels of funding to local authorities for small-scale schemes including road safety and programmes to encourage walking and cycling; these can include the provision of lockers and secure cycle parking. We have also set up the Cycling Projects Fund, to which schools can apply for funding for cycle routes, lockers and secure cycle parking.

  We have included best practice guidance on setting up successful operator and local authority discount schemes for children on buses in our best practice guidance for increasing bus use for journeys to school and we also included workshops on how to encourage and work with bus operators successfully in our school travel seminars.

  In order to improve relationships between bus drivers and young people we commissioned a training programme for bus drivers. New European standards have been established for the knowledge drivers must have before obtaining a licence to driver a bus or a coach. These include the driver's responsibility in respect of the safety and comfort of passengers including children and the appropriate material has been added to Driving Standards Agency publications.

  Secure Stations
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library a list of stations which have Secure Station status. [99778]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The list of the 170 stations currently accredited under the Secure Stations Scheme has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Traffic (East Lancashire)
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of likely traffic flows in East Lancashire following completion of the Bingley bypass. [100044]

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

  Letter from Tim Matthews to Gordon Prentice dated 3 March 2003:
  I have been asked by the Transport Minister, David Jamieson, to reply to your recent parliamentary question asking what assessment has been made of likely traffic flows in East Lancashire following completion of the Bingley Bypass.
  An assessment was carried out ten years ago to calculate the movement in traffic patterns caused by a series of bypass and improvement schemes on the A650, A629 and A65 which were at that time in the National Roads Programme. This showed that the impact on the East Lancashire network would be small. Clearly this assessment was based on data that is now out of date. Following the 1997–98 Roads Review it was decided not to proceed with many of the schemes, but the A650 Bingley Relief Road scheme remained in the roads programme.
  I can confirm that no specific assessments have been carried out which looked at the impact of the completed A650 Bingley Relief Road scheme on traffic flows in East Lancashire.
  If you require any further information, please contact Peter Scally, the Highways Agency Project Manager for the A650 Bingley Relief Road scheme. He can be contacted on 0113 283 6488 or you can e-mail him at peter.scally@highways.gsi.gov.uk

  Work Placements
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many university students his Department and associated agencies have supported or sponsored with a work placement in the last year; what his policy is on work placements; what plans he has to develop such schemes; and what his policy is on paying their university fees. [98535]

  Mr. Jamieson
  In 2002, my Department organised centrally five summer work placements.

  Placements arranged are available to individuals through formal schemes:
  the Cabinet Office Fast Stream Summer Development programme—aimed at ethnic minority graduates and undergraduates;
  Workable—an organisation which arranges work placements for disabled graduates and undergraduates; and
  the Windsor Fellowship—aimed at ethnic minority undergraduates.

  My Department is keen to offer placement opportunities through these schemes and will continue to work in partnership with the organisations to encourage able individuals to consider the civil service as a career.

  For students on work placements, my Department's policy is not to pay university fees. However, whether the organisations with whom we work pay them, is a matter for them.

MINISTER FOR WOMEN

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Minister for Women what discussions she has had with the Home Office and the Department for Health regarding the availability of health care for female asylum seekers and refugees at dispersal areas. [98073]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 24 February 2003]: I have had no discussions with the Home Office and the Department of Health regarding the availability of health care for female asylum seekers and refugees at dispersal areas.

  Domestic Violence
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Minister for Women what discussions she has had and plans to have with the Home Office about the central collection of statistics regarding domestic violence. [99047]

  Ms Hewitt
  Domestic violence is a serious and abhorrent crime accounting for a quarter of all violent crime. Currently, any incidents of this crime are recorded through the British Crime Survey and the Police Crime Statistics.

  Within these Police Crime Statistics, domestic violence is not a separate category and incidents are recorded across a range of crimes. As a consequence, it can be difficult to identify the prevalence of this serious crime.
  797W
  I am in correspondence with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on this issue.

  Public Appointments
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Minister for Women how many women have attended regional seminars by the Women and Equality Unit on attracting women to public appointments; and if she will make a statement. [99042]

  Ms Hewitt
  848 women attended the eight regional seminars. In addition, five national seminars took place, targeted at specialist female audiences. In total, 1,328 women, from diverse backgrounds, attended the 13 seminars.

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Minister for Women if she will make a statement on the publication of the Cabinet Office report, "Public Bodies 2002". [99043]

  Ms Hewitt
  I welcome the publication of "Public Bodies 2002", as announced by the Cabinet Office on 31 January 2003. Although the number of women holding public appointments has remained static at 34 per cent., the figures published are as at March 2002, and therefore do not reflect any changes due to activity since March 2002. I welcome the news that the proportion of those from minority ethnic backgrounds and those with disabilities have increased (from 4.8 per cent. to 6.2 per cent. and from 1.5 per cent. to 3.3 per cent. respectively).

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Minister for Women if she will make a statement on the regional seminar series hosted by the Women and Equality Unit in attracting women to public appointments; and if she will make a statement. [99045]

  Ms Hewitt
  The national outreach campaign to encourage more women to apply for public appointments included a series of regional seminars and events targeted at specific audiences. The seminars aimed to increase awareness among women, to provide support and to help women realise their potential. On-the-day evaluation showed that 91 per cent. of those attending reported that they were now more likely to apply for an appointment.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Algeria (Controlled Goods)
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the controlled goods which have been granted export licences for use in Algeria for each month since September 2001. [99145]

  Nigel Griffiths
  I refer the hon Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Moore) on 6 February 2003,Official Report, column 389W–390W.

  Benefit Claimants
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) how quickly disabled people will be 798W
  able to change designated individuals authorised to collect benefit payments on their behalf from post offices when card accounts come into operation; [100450]

  (2) what plans she has made for assisting disabled people to use the new PIN number key pads for card accounts in post offices when accessing benefits; [100447]

  (3) what the procedure is for benefit claimants changing designated individuals to collect payments on their behalf when their carer changes. [100449]

  Mr. Timms
  This is a matter which falls within the day-to-day responsibility of Post Office Ltd. I have therefore asked the chief executive to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what financial assistance her Department gave to the Greater London Assembly in 2002; and for what projects. [95847]

  Alan Johnson
  No financial assistance was given to the London Assembly in 2002.

  Employers Liability Insurance
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the Office of Fair Trading report on Employers Liability Compulsory Insurance will be published. [100244]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Office of Fair Trading is conducting a fact finding study of the UK Liability Insurance Market, including Employers Liability Compulsory Insurance (ELCI). The timing of the study is a matter for the OFT, but I understand that a report is planned for publication in spring 2003. Further details of the OFT study are available at http://www.oft. gov.uk/market + investigations/investigations/insurance.htm.

  The Government are simultaneously carrying out a review specifically of the operation of the ELCI system, led by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) and involving other Government Departments, including the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI). Officials working on the ELCI review are also working closely with OFT and the two pieces of work are being conducted to a similar timetable. Further details of the ELC1 review are available at www.dwp.gov.uk/publications/dwp/2002/ health-safety/eli-review/index.htm.

  Energy Policy Consultation
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she will publish a summary of the responses to the consultation on energy policy. [99674]

  Mr. Wilson
  The energy White Paper consultation process consisted of two main strands, public consultation and strategic stakeholder consultation.

  Three methods were used in consulting the public: focus groups, deliberative workshops, and a touch screen questionnaire used at the BBC Tomorrow's World roadshows in Birmingham, London, Cardiff and Glasgow, and also made available via the DTI website. The results of the public consultation were published on 10 October 2002.
  799W
  Stakeholders were invited to comment on a variety of themes including security of supply, climate change, international issues, energy efficiency and energy supply and distribution. A summary of the results were published on 27 November 2002.

  The consultation results are on the DTI website at http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/developep/.

  Environmental Impact Assessment (North Sea)
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what environmental impact assessment process is in place in respect of oil and gas exploration and production activities in the North Sea. [99795]

  Mr. Wilson
  Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) became a formal requirement for all offshore oil and gas activities in March 1999, following the introduction of the Offshore Petroleum Production and Pipe-lines (Assessment of Environmental Effects) Regulations 1999. All new developments, and significant exploration and production activities that could have an adverse impact in the receiving environment, require a full EIA that includes consultation with statutory bodies and a period of public notice. Other activities are also assessed to confirm that a full EIA is not required. Activities are additionally considered under the Offshore Petroleum Activities (Conservation of Habitats) Regulations 2001.

  Fair Trade Products
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her policy is on the purchase, for departmental use, of fair trade products. [99290]

  Ms Hewitt
  Departmental policy is to promote the purchase of fair trade products. However, this is set against the background of the need to obtain best value for money, the EC procurement rules and the Department's objectives. Within these guidelines, the Department is committed to supporting ethical trading wherever possible. For example, the Department's catering contractor to its London restaurants makes available fair trade tea and coffee to staff.

  Fireworks
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when her Department will publish the firework injury statistics for November 2002; and what plans she has to collect year-round firework injury statistics. [98716]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The firework injury statistics are currently being finalised and it is our intention to publish them by the end of March. I have no plans to collect them year -round.

  Hospitality
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what hospitality has been offered at public expense in the last 12 months by each Minister in her Department to outside interest groups, broken down by(a) restaurant, (b) recipient and (c) cost in each case; [99497]
  800W
  (2) what criteria Ministers in her Department use when determining whether to offer hospitality in restaurants to interest groups at public expense; and if she will make a statement; [99496]

  (3) how often Ministers in her Department have received hospitality in restaurants from outside groups. [99572]

  Ms Hewitt
  All offers of hospitality are made in accordance with published departmental guidance on financial procedures and propriety, based on the principles set out in 'Government Accounting'. The giving and receiving of hospitality is conducted fully in accordance with the guidance set out in the Ministerial Code, and Guidance on Contacts with Outside Interest Groups including Lobbyists. The detailed information requested is not held centrally, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  House Building
  Matthew Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what schemes are in place to increase the number of people in house building professions. [99397]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Construction Industry Training Board is taking the lead in increasing recruitment into the construction industry. This includes the needs of the house building sector. The Ambition Construction scheme was launched in 2001 with joint CITB and DWP funding to train and place New Deal clients in skilled jobs directly relevant to house building.

  In recognition of the importance of this issue to the future health of the industry, the Strategic Forum for Construction has set targets for recruitment and retention in its agenda (as set out in its report "Accelerating Change"). In addition, the Strategic Forum is also looking to improve the productivity of the construction industry through integrated team working and through offsite fabrication which will in turn increase the ability of the industry to meet the demands—both in terms of quality and quantity—of its clients. The Department is working with the Strategic Forum and others, to deliver this agenda.

  Manufacturing Investment
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on levels of manufacturing investment. [100085]

  Alan Johnson
  The level of manufacturing investment as a proportion of manufacturing output in the fourth quarter of 2002 was 9.7 per cent.

  Recent difficulties faced by manufacturing are largely the result of the global slowdown, which began in 2001, and increased uncertainty and lower confidence in global conditions have led firms to postpone investment projects.

  We are taking action to help manufacturers facing difficult conditions through the Government's Manufacturing Strategy we have developed in partnership with industry. The macroeconomic framework we have established, with low inflation and sound public finances, is

  801W
  creating the right underlying conditions to encourage businesses to increase investment when the global economy recovers.

  Minister for Science
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to her answer of 24 February 2003, ref 98996, if she will list the official visits to(a) companies, (b) universities and (c) organisations by (i) the Minister for Science and (ii) the Chief Scientific Adviser in each of the last three years. [99985]

  Ms Hewitt
  Unfortunately this information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  North Sea Oil and Gas Industry
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on her plans to work with Norway to make more efficient the administration of the North Sea oil and gas industry. [99198]

  Mr. Wilson
  The report of the UK-Norway North Sea Co-operation Workgroup, published in August 2002, sets out a number of recommendations to facilitate closer co-operation and sharing of best practice. This includes a Framework Treaty—designed to facilitate a wide range of potential future trans-boundary oil and gas developments—and a single North Sea suppliers' database. Further work is also proposed to assess the need for a pan-industry Code of Practice.

  The report shows clearly that improved co-operation in the recommended areas can improve North Sea effectiveness and will unlock value through lowering investment and operating costs, through economies of scale and through improved safety standards.

  A Pilot /Kon-Craft Implementation Group is working closely with relevant parties to ensure that the recommendations of the report are fully realised.

  Oil/Gas Reserves
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate she has made of(a) oil and (b) gas reserves on the UK mainland. [99791]

  Mr. Wilson
  Current estimates of remaining reserves (proven and probable) on the UK mainland are(a) 18.7 million tonnes of oil and (b) 4,400 million cubic metres of gas. The gas reserves include associated gas from onshore oil fields, dry gas from onshore gas fields and mine gas from mine vent fields.

  Part-time Workers
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she is taking to accord part-time workers the same employment rights as those in full-time work. [100480]

  Alan Johnson
  Part-time employees in the UK enjoy the same statutory employment rights as full-timers, including protection against unfair dismissal, unlawful deductions from wages and adverse treatment on grounds of sex, race or disability. In addition, the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable 802W
  Treatment) Regulations 2000 require them to be treated no less favourably in their terms and conditions than comparable full-timers, unless different treatment can be justified on objective grounds.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has had with European Union colleagues regarding a Europe-wide approach to securing parity of employment rights between part-time workers and full-time workers. [100482]

  Alan Johnson
  None. The European Directive on part-time work already requires member states to ensure that part-time workers are treated no less favourably in their terms and conditions of employment than comparable full-timers.

  Post Office Closures
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many consultation exercises have been undertaken by Post Office Counters concerning proposed closures of post offices since 1 July 2001; and how many such exercises have resulted in the intention to close being withdrawn. [99916]

  Mr. Timms
  Proposals for post office closures under the urban network reinvention programme are put out to public consultation in accordance with the code of practice agreed with Postwatch. Final decisions on closure, after consideration of representations received, are an operational matter for Post Office Ltd. I have therefore asked the Chief Executive to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Recycling
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if electricity produced from processes involving the recovery of clean recyclable materials will be classed as a renewable source of energy. [99372]

  Mr. Wilson
  Under Directive 2001/77/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 September 2001 on the promotion of electricity produced from renewable energy sources in the internal electricity market, "renewable energy sources" are defined to include "biomass," and "biomass" is defined to include "the biodegradable fraction of industrial and municipal waste."

  In the UK, the renewables obligation includes the biodegradable fraction of waste only if it is converted to electricity through advanced conversion technologies such as pyrolysis, gasification and anaerobic digestion.

ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE

  Electoral Commission (Expenditure Limit)
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the hon. Member for Gosport, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission what change is planned to the Departmental Expenditure Limit of the Electoral Commission for 2002–03. [100321]

  Mr. Viggers
  Subject to parliamentary approval of the necessary supplementary estimate, the Electoral Commission DEL for 2002–03 will be increased by
  803W
  £1,294,000 from £20,117,000 to £21,411,000. Within the DEL change, the impact on resources and capital are set out in the following table:

  £000

  Resources

  Capital

  Change

  694

  600

  New Del

  20,460

  951

  Of which:

  Voted

  20,460

  951

  Non-voted

  0

  0

  The change in the resource element of the DEL arises from the take up of end year flexibility for 2001–02 in respect of the payment of policy development grants (£514,528) and public awareness costs (£179,457) and for capital and refurbishment and other fit out costs of Commission offices.

  Although the funds had been budgeted for and approved in respect of this expenditure for the year 2001–02, the Commission was unable to make full use of the case provision.

  In order to incorporate the carry over into the Electoral Commission's voted resources for 2002–03, the Speaker's Committee, having consulted the Treasury, agreed on 24 February to lay a spring supplementary supply estimate.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development pursuant to her answer of 14 January 2003,Official Report, column 564, on HIPC, what response the UK Government has had from the World bank and the IMF to the call for their approach to topping up to be widened to provide additional relief for HIPC countries with unsustainable debts. [99686]

  Clare Short
  We continue, with others, to press the IMF and the World Bank to change the rules on topping up, so that any HIPC country facing unsustainable debts which has demonstrated its commitment to poverty reduction and economic reform can qualify for this additional debt relief. At discussions on topping up, to be held in the IMF and the World bank boards over the next month we shall press to move this issue forward. We are working with others to achieve this. Topping up is calculated on a case by case basis, depending on the assessment of each country's economic prospects.

  Hospitality
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) how often Ministers in her Department have received hospitality in restaurants from outside groups, broken down by(a) restaurant, (b) recipient and (c) cost in each case; [99592]

  (2) what criteria Ministers in her Department use when determining whether to offer hospitality in restaurants to interest groups at public expense; and if she will make a statement; [99516]
  804W
  (3) what hospitality has been offered at public expense in the last 12 months by each Minister in her Department to outside interest groups. [99517]

  Clare Short
  All offers of hospitality are made in accordance with published departmental guidance on financial procedures and propriety, based on the principles set out in Government Accounting. The giving and receiving of hospitality is conducted in accordance with the guidance set out in the Ministerial Code, and Guidance on Contacts with Outside Interest Groups including Lobbyists. The detailed information requested is not held centrally, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Meningitis (Nigeria)
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action her Department has taken in response to the meningitis epidemic in(a) the Nigerian state of Zangara and (b) Burkina Faso. [99348]

  Clare Short
  Epidemic Meningococcal Disease (EMD) is a contagious disease responsible for high number of deaths throughout the world, with up to 50 per cent. of victims dying in the developing world. Of those who survive, between 10–20 per cent. suffer permanent brain damage.

  Epidemic meningococcal disease imposes its greatest burden on a group of 18 countries that form the so-called "African meningitis belt", stretching from Ethiopia to Senegal. Epidemics can be devastating, sometimes flaring up to as many as 100,000 cases in a very short period of time. In the absence of mass vaccination, an epidemic can last for several months, draining enormous resources, overwhelming hospitals and disrupting routine care.

  The strategy to control a meningitis epidemic has three components: early detection of outbreaks, emergency mass immunization campaigns, and careful case management.

  The Government of Nigeria has not approached DFID to respond to the epidemic In Zamfara. However DFID supports WHO in all its work. This includes the valuable efforts to support Governments tackle epidemics. WHO are involved in supporting the Government of Burkina Faso in their surveillance and clinical service delivery. In addition, WHO has been working with GSK (vaccine manufacturer) and Gates Foundation to ensure adequate quantities of appropriate vaccine.

  Police Training
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on the competitive tendering arrangements that culminated in the award of a contract to the Rameses Group for police training in the Balkans region; and if she will make a statement. [99447]

  Clare Short
  DFID has contracted Atos KPMG Consulting as implementing agents for the United Kingdom Government's programme of assistance to enhance access to justice in the Balkans. The Rameses Group is subcontracted by Atos KPMG Consulting
  805W
  as project director for activities concerned with community-based policing and community safety in Serbia. The Atos KPMG Consulting contract was awarded following an open tender process in line with EC procurement directives.

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development whether(a) the OSCE and (b) another international agency was invited to fulfil the work in relation to police training in the Balkans that was subsequently contracted to the Rameses Group. [99449]

  Clare Short
  After an open tender procedure in line with EC procurement directives, DFID contracted Atos KPMG Consulting as implementing agents for the United Kingdom Government's programme of assistance to enhance access to justice in the Balkans. DFID was not involved in the subcontracting arrangements with the Rameses Group.

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development for what purposes the Rameses Group has been awarded a contract in relation to police training in the Balkans region; and if she will make a statement. [99450]

  Clare Short
  As part of the UK Government's support for enhancing access to justice in the Balkans, the Rameses Group has been sub-contracted by our implementing agents, Atos KPMG Consulting, as project director for activities concerned with community based policing and community safety in Serbia.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Age Diversity
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when her Department completed its diagnostic review for compliance with the Government's Code of Practice for Age Diversity in Employment; and what changes her Department plans to make following the review. [99423]

  Dr. Howells
  The Department is committed to equal opportunities for all and had already incorporated age into its equal opportunities policy prior to the "Winning the Generation Game" report. The Department is in the process of implementing the final recommendation of the report, with the introduction of a flexible retirement age for those between 60 and 65 years.

  Institution

  Increase in visitors in the first 12 months of free entry1

  Imperial War Museum (Lambeth Road)

  68,887

  Victoria and Albert Museum (free entry introduced 22 November 2001)

  1,245,674

  Natural History Museum

  1,336,457

  Science Museum (South Kensington)

  1,321,316

  National Railway Museum (York)

  197,596

  National Coal Mining Museum for England (free entry introduced 8 April 2002)

  230,307

  Museum of London

  85,972

  Royal Armouries (Leeds)

  59,676

  Hospitality
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what her Department's hospitality budget(a) is in 2002–03 and (b) was in each of the last three years; and how much was left unspent at the end of each financial year. [99585]

  Dr. Howells
  The hospitably budgets for financial years 1999–2003 are laid out in the following table, together with the expenditure incurred on hospitality in financial years 1999–2002.

  It should be noted, however, that from 2001–02 onwards the hospitality budgets were subsumed into a larger budget which included conferences and committees, as part of the Department's move to a delegated budgeting system. It is now for Directors to decide how much they would spend on each element, and consequently it is not possible to state a figure for the hospitality element of the aggregated budget and any underspend against that budget element, although it is still possible to identify the expenditure incurred on hospitality.

  Year

  Budget

  Expenditure

  Underspend/(overspend)

  1999–2000

  51,941

  32,533

  19,408

  2000–01

  33,190

  50,891

  (17,701)

  2001–02

  —

  28,657

  —

  2002–03

  —

  —

  —

  Museums and Galleries
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport in which museums and galleries sponsored by her Department free admission has been introduced; what the annual cost of free admission in lost income from charging was in each year since its introduction; how many more visitors have attended these museums and galleries since free admission was introduced; and if she will make a statement. [99839]

  Dr. Howells
  Free admission for all to those museums and galleries sponsored by my Department that previously charged was introduced on 1 December 2001 (22 November 2001 for the V&A). In addition, free admission to the National Coal Mining Museum for England was introduced on 8 April 2002, while the Imperial War Museum of the North in Trafford, Manchester opened free on 2 July 2002. In the first 12 months of this policy (1 December 2001 to 30 November 2002), these museums received an additional 5.4 million visitors, an increase of 70 per cent. The cost of free admission to these museums is £28.1 million in 2002–03. Details of the museums involved and of the growth in visitors are given in the following table.
  807W

  Institution

  Increase in visitors in the first 12 months of free entry1

  Royal Armouries (Fort Nelson, Portsmouth)

  25,650

  National Museums and Galleries on Merseyside

  545,195

  Museum of Science and Industry in Manchester

  183,878

  Imperial War Museum of the North, Trafford, Manchester

  Opened July 2002

  Total

  5,408,548

  1 1 December 2001–30 November 2002.

  2 For the first eight months of free entry since April 2002.

  The growth in visitors is a magnificent testament to the success of the Free Access policy and to the important role of our sponsored museums and galleries.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what proportion of visitors to the national museums and galleries sponsored by her

  1997–98

  1998–99

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Number of overseas visitors

  n/a

  10,700,480

  10,869,483

  10,439,938

  10,029,208

  Percentage of total visitors

  n/a

  45

  45

  36

  33

  The fall in the proportion of overseas visitors comes against the background of an increase in the total number of visitors from 24 million in 1997–98 to 30 million in 2002–03. It reflects the substantial increase in visitors from the UK attributable to the introduction of full free access.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the total cost to public funds of free admission to Department of Culture, Media and Sport sponsored museums and galleries was in each year from 1999–2000 to 2003–04 (planned); and if she will make a statement. [99841]

  Dr. Howells
  The total cost of public funding to facilitate free admission to the former charging museums and galleries sponsored by my Department is set out in the following table. Visitors to these museums and galleries increased by 70 per cent. from 1 December 2001 to 30 November 2002, the first full year of free admission for all.

  £million

  1999–20001

  2000–012

  2001–023

  2002–034

  2003–045

  Total

  4.2

  8.02

  13.8

  28.1

  29.3

  1 Free children from 1 April 1999.

  2 Free children; free over 60s from 1 April 2000.

  3 Free children and over 60s; free to all from 1 December 2001.

  4 Free to all.

  5 Free to all.

  Figures have been rounded to nearest £0.1 million.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many visits there were to the British Museum in each year since 1996–97; what changes in the charging regime there have been since 1997; and if she will make a statement. [99844]

  Dr. Howells
  The British Museum has maintained free admission to its permanent collections since its establishment in the 18th Century. The number of visitors since 1996–97 is as follows.
  808W
  Department were visiting the UK from overseas in each year since 1997; and if she will make a statement. [99840]

  Dr. Howells
  The proportion of overseas visitors to the national museums and galleries sponsored by my Department since 1998–99 is set out in the following table. Figures for 1997–98 are not available.

  Year

  Total visitors

  1996–97

  5,525,000

  1997–98

  5,185,000

  1998–99

  4,768,578

  1999–2000

  4,645,565

  2000–01

  4,687,920

  2001–02

  4,810,000

  April 2002 to January 2003

  3,875,140

  I welcome the British Museum's commitment to maintaining free access to its permanent collections.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much money has been distributed by the National Lottery in each year since it was established; and if she will make a statement. [99837]

  Mr. Caborn
  The following table, which is based upon information supplied to us by the distributing bodies for the National Lottery awards database, shows how much money has been awarded in each calendar year since 1995.

  £

  Year

  Total amount awarded

  1995

  983,462,994

  1996

  1,715,239,248

  1997

  2,380,203,184

  1998

  1,099,279,154

  1999

  1,548,634,247

  2000

  1,242,308,699

  2001

  1,310,094,043

  2002

  1,094,087,046

  Note:

  Although the first National Lottery draw was in November 1994, Lottery award were made from 1995 onwards

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the take-up of National Lottery grants in the Yeovil constituency since 1997. [99842]
  809W
  Mr. Caborn
  According to the information supplied to us by the distributing bodies for the National Lottery awards database, the Yeovil constituency has been awarded a total of £6,974,537 in lottery funding between 1 January 1997 and 31 January 2003.

  Playing Field Sales
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will place in the Library a statement of the(a) criteria applied and (b) circumstances surrounding the playing fields which have been sold since May 1997, and those in relation to which sale was prevented. [100329]

  Mr. Caborn
  Sport England is a statutory consultee on all planning applications which affect playing fields. I am arranging to place in the Libraries of both Houses, an annex which summarises the legislative measures and criteria applied to proposals to dispose of school playing fields and to planning applications affecting playing fields since 1997.

  The collation centrally of information detailing the circumstances surrounding both playing fields sold and those for which sale was prevented would incur disproportionate costs.

  Rugby Union
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will meet a delegation from Rotherham Rugby Football Union Club to discuss rugby union. [100242]

  Mr. Caborn
  I met representatives of Rotherham Rugby Football Union Club at the Don Valley Stadium, Sheffield on 31 October 2002. We discussed matters relating to the rugby club and general rugby union issues.

  I would be happy to meet representatives of the club again to discuss any further developments at Rotherham.

  Tourism
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many visitors made visits to British tourist attractions in 2002. [99684]

  Dr. Howells
  Statistics for the number of visits made to visitor attractions in 2002 will not be available until the summer of 2003.

  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate she has made of expenditure on non-domestic tourism in 2002. [99755]

  Dr. Howells
  Expenditure by overseas visitors to the UK in 2002 is estimated to have been £11.8 billion.

  Welsh Fourth Channel
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much her Department spent on the Welsh Fourth Channel Authority (S4C) in each year since 1980–81; how many viewers the channel had in each of the last 10 years; what plans there are to transfer the funding of S4C to the Welsh Assembly; and if she will make a statement. [99838]
  810W
  Dr. Howells
  The Department for Culture, Media and Sport was created in 1992, as the Department of National Heritage. Prior to this, grant payments to S4C were made by the Home Office. The amount of grant in aid paid under S4Cs statutory funding formula since 1980–81 was:

  £ million

  Year

  Amount

  January 1981 to March 1982

  2.009

  Year ending 31 March

  1983

  18.107

  1984

  25.119

  1985

  28.000

  1986

  31.900

  1987

  33.880

  1988

  40.000

  1989

  45.453

  1990

  51.738

  1991

  55.902

  April to December 1991

  43.666

  Year ending 31 December

  1992

  58.571

  1993

  55.705

  1994

  57.971

  1995

  63.942

  1996

  68.416

  1997

  72.223

  1998

  74.895

  1999

  77.134

  2000

  78.218

  2001

  80.745

  2002

  81.468

  The total number of viewers, based on average weekly reach, for each of the last 10 years for which figures are available, was:

  Year

  1Total number of viewers

  19922

  1,470,720

  1993

  1,531,860

  1994

  1,547,040

  1995

  1,559,240

  1996

  1,594,560

  1997

  1,544,320

  1998

  1,491,450

  1999

  1,533,260

  2000

  1,432,020

  2001

  1,268,370

  1 Viewing figures are based on the average over the year of the total number of viewers in Wales aged four or over who watched S4C for at least three consecutive minutes during the course of each week.

  2 The figure for 1992 is based on data for September to December, due to a temporary HTV viewing panel being used for the period January to August 1992.

  Source:

  Broadcasters' Audience Research Board figures provided by S4C.

  The Government has no plans to transfer the funding of S4C to the Welsh Assembly.

DEFENCE

  International Terrorism (British Forces)
  Mr. Roy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, if he will make a statement on his plans for the
  811W
  future involvement of British forces in combating international terrorism. [99865]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Armed Forces have a significant role in the Government's counter-terrorist strategy, which includes the capability to take military action in self-defence when necessary. The New Chapter of the Strategic Defence Review set out the types of tasks which they might be directed to undertake, in terms of prevention, deterrence, coercion, disruption and destruction.

  Army Numbers
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what the approved strength of the Army is; and how many vacancies there are. [99867]

  Dr. Moonie
  As at 1 January 2003, whole Army strength stood at 102,800, representing a shortfall of 4,180 personnel against the current requirement.

  United Kingdom armed forces full time strengths and trained requirement figures are contained in the Defence Analytical Services Agency's Tri-Service Publication 3, which is available in the Library of the House.

  Deepcut Barracks
  Mr. Eric Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, if he will make a statement on the deaths which have occurred at Deepcut barracks. [99870]

  Mr. Ingram
  The deaths of Privates Sean Benton, Cheryl James, Geoff Gray and James Collinson at Deepcut remain the subject of an ongoing investigation by the Surrey police. The Army has always co-operated fully with the police in the course of their enquiries, and continues to do so. It would be inappropriate to comment on the specific circumstances surrounding the deaths, or hold any further inquiry, whilst current investigations continue.

  Defence Fire Service
  Ms Julia Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, what plans he has to pursue a private finance initiative for the Defence Fire Service. [99866]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Airfield Support Services Project is seeking to achieve the most viable and cost effective solution for the provision of airfield support and wider fire services to the Ministry of Defence world wide without compromising operational effectiveness. It includes both PPP and in-house solutions.

  The bids will be compared against a taut public sector comparator. Main Gate approval is planned for October 2003 while the eventual decision will be based on best value for money—no decisions have been taken at this stage.

  Red Dragon Project
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, when he next plans to visit the Defence Aviation Repair Agency at RAF St. Athan to discuss the Red Dragon project. [99868]
  812W
  Mr. Ingram
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence currently has no plans to visit DARA. However, I visited DARA at RAF St Athan last week to launch the Red Dragon project.

  Aircraft Carriers
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what he calculates to be the taxpayer's liability under the contractual arrangements he is proposing between his Department, BAE Systems and Thales for the construction of the two new aircraft carriers. [98580]

  Mr. Ingram
  We are now in discussion with BAE Systems and Thales UK to confirm that the proposed alliance partnership offers the best means of delivering the future aircraft carrier programme and will be capable of operating effectively. We also intend that the Ministry of Defence should take up a formal role within the Alliance. The precise roles and responsibilities of the alliance members will be determined through negotiations. At the conclusion of the negotiations, theMinistry of Defence will be required to demonstrate that it has completely bounded the Government's liabilities under the terms of the prime contract, which we plan to award in the spring of 2004.

  Richard Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on progress in negotiations on construction of the new aircraft carriers. [99860]

  Mr. Ingram
  Discussions with BAE Systems and Thales UK on the Alliance structure for the aircraft carrier programme are progressing. Although I cannot go into the detail of the commercial negotiations, both companies are engaging positively in the process and we anticipate moving forward to the next phase of assessment work in the next few months.

  Battlegroup Thermal Imaging
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reason the in service date for battlegroup thermal imaging has been delayed; and if he will make a statement. [99799]

  Mr. Ingram
  The in service date for Battlegroup Thermal Imaging (BGTI) equipment has been revised so that it better aligns with the conversion programme for Bowman. This minimises the disruption to front line units as vehicles that are to receive both BGTI and Bowman will only need to be withdrawn from service for a single period, during which both conversions will be completed.

  Biological/Chemical Weapons
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to withdraw British troops from military action where an ally uses(a) biological and (b) chemical weapons. [99669]

  Mr. Hoon
  Our NATO allies are State Parties to both the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) and the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention (BTWC) and have renounced the use of such weapons.

  Bowman
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether(a) operational field trials for Bowman, and (b) the conversion of the first unit to the communications system, are on target to take place this year; and if he will make a statement. [99800]

  Mr. Ingram
  Yes. We continue to make good progress on the Bowman tactical communications system programme in our aim to introduce it to all three Services as planned between 2004 and 2007. The 1st Battalion Royal Anglian Regiment will begin its Bowman conversion and training programme in July 2003 in advance of operational field trials in November 2003.

  Domestic Security
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence, how many reservists participated in domestic security operations in January and February. [99859]

  Mr. Ingram
  Domestic security in the United Kingdom is primarily the responsibility of the Home Office and the police. Military assistance is, however, provided on a regular basis and contributes significantly towards the security of United Kingdom citizens. No reservists were engaged in providing such assistance during January or February this year.

  European Defence Concept
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans there are for the development of a European strategic concept for defence. [100286]

  Mr. Hoon
  NATO provides the collective defence mechanisms for its Members including those in Europe. This is articulated in the Alliance's Strategic Concept which was agreed at the Washington Summit in 1999. There are no plans to produce an alternative strategic concept.

  Fire Dispute
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Royal Navy(a) ships and (b) personnel are being diverted from other operational tasks to ensure their availability for fire fighting duties in the event of a firefighter strike; and if he will make a statement. [99851]

  Mr. Ingram
  Almost 3,300 Royal Navy and Royal Marines personnel were used on fire-fighting duties during the last fire-fighters strike. A significant number of personnel used were taken from ships and submarines undergoing periods of refit or maintenance or which had returned from operational deployments and were not programmed to undergo further deployments. Only two of the ships from which personnel had for fire-fighting duties were prevented from undertaking operational tasks.

  With the exception of 330 people currently undergoing training, the individuals used for fire-lighting have now returned to their units where, whilst remaining on standby for fire-fighting duties, they have resumed their normal duties. As the Honourable
  814W
  Member will appreciate, the Royal Navy's involvement in fire-fighting duties has not prevented the deployment of a substantial Task Force to the Gulf.

  Logistical Support (Gulf)
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the logistical operations in support of the deployment of UK forces to the Gulf. [99861]

  Mr. Ingram
  Logistic operations in support of the deployment of United Kingdom forces to the Gulf are fully effective. They will result in an equivalent quantity of material to that supplied for the last Gulf conflict being deployed to theatre in half the time. The deployment has required a significant strategic air and sea lift, and is supported by arrangements to sustain and manage continuing supply chain activity.

  Nuclear Weapons
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with the USA about their obligations under the Non Proliferation Treaty to(a) limit the spread of nuclear weapons and (b) actively move towards the elimination of US nuclear weapons. [99672]

  Mr. Hoon
  I have had no such discussions. However, Ministry of Defence officials have regular contact with their counterparts from the United States and several other states on issues relating to the non proliferation treaty.

  Primary Casualty Receiving Ship
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the decision to use a conventional procurement route for the primary casualty receiving ship was made; and if he will make a statement. [99801]

  Mr. Ingram
  The decision was taken at the end of 2002. Our working assumption had been that some form of private sector involvement would be beneficial. A series of studies, however, demonstrated the absence of a private market for such a ship's facilities and also that a service-provision contract would be incompatible with the operational requirement.

  Remote Influence Minesweeping System
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much money was invested in the Remote Influence Minesweeping System before the project was cancelled in April 2002; why the project was cancelled; and if he will make a statement. [99802]

  Mr. Ingram
  Expenditure on the Remote Influence Minesweeping System amounted to some £2.7 million at out-turn prices. The investment afforded us valuable insights which will be exploited in the future.

  The decision to discontinue the project was taken as part of the normal departmental planning process. The same process has freed up resources for a programme of incremental technology insertion which will enhance the Royal Navy's mine countermeasures capabilities from the middle of the present decade and will include, early in the next decade, a remote capability.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Alcohol Abstinence Orders
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many alcohol abstinence orders have been given in each of the last five years. [98176]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave on 25 February 2003,Official Report, column 416W.

  Angel Group
  Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what allowances, benefits and support of other kind other than tax credits is provided to employees of the Angel Group and its subsidiaries from public funds. [99704]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 27 February 2003]: The National Asylum Support Service (NASS) has a contract with the Angel Group to provide accommodation for asylum seekers. The contract price does not include specific payments to the Angel Group in relation to allowances, benefits and other support for its staff.

  Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will list the contracts which the Angel Group and its subsidiaries have agreed with local authorities for the provision of services for asylum seekers and other specific groups of individuals; [99687]

  (2) if he will list the contracts let and the dates on which they were let by his Department and its agencies to the Angel Group and its subsidiary companies; [99702]

  (3) for how many contracts the Angel Group and its subsidiary companies applied to the Home Office and its agencies, and with what results, in the last five years. [99705]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 27 February 2003]: The National Asylum Support Service (NASS) has one contract with the Angel Group which was signed on 3 April 2000 and runs for five years. I am unable to supply information on tenders submitted by the group during the last five years since this is commercial in confidence. NASS is not aware of any contracts the Angel Group has entered into with local authorities and other agencies regarding the provision of services for asylum seekers.

  Asylum Centre (Daedalus Site)
  Mr. Viggers
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the Minister of State responsible for immigration will visit Lee-on-the-Solent to meet residents in advance of any decision being taken on whether to apply for planning permission for an asylum centre at the Daedalus site. [100158]

  Beverley Hughes
  I can confirm that I will visit Lee-on-the-Solent to hear the views of local people. The timing of that meeting will be determined in consultation with Gosport borough council.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. James Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps his Department takes to ensure that protection and assistance is given to children separated from their parents who are seeking asylum. [100314]

  Jacqui Smith
  I have been asked to reply.

  Unaccompanied, asylum-seeking children as supported by councils with social services responsibilities, in accordance with the duties laid on them by the Children Act 1989. The Act draws no distinction between such children and other children in need.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seeker applications by country of origin are awaiting first interview after a period of(a) three months or less, (b) six months or less, (c) 12 months or less, (d) two years or less and (e) more than two years after lodging their case. [99095]

  Beverley Hughes
  The available data for the number of applications are based on the total number awaiting initial decision, rather than the number awaiting an interview. The number of cases awaiting an initial decision has been at a lower level during 2002 than for 10 years. There were 40,800 applications awaiting an initial decision at the end of December 2002.

  The Government's emphasis has been on delivering the challenging targets set for deciding the majority of new substantive asylum applications within two months. Older cases are progressed as resources allow. 76 per cent. of new substantive applications (excluding withdrawals and third country cases) received in the period April to September 2002 had initial decisions made and served within two months. The Home Office's Public Service Agreement target for 2002–03 is 65 per cent.

  Information on the number of asylum applications awaiting an initial decision is published quarterly on the Home Office website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uki rds/immigration 1.html. The next publication will be available from 30 May and will cover the first quarter of 2003 (January to March).

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many dispersal areas there are in England and Wales to which asylum seekers are sent. [99409]

  Beverley Hughes
  There are currently 71 cluster areas in England and Wales to which asylum seekers may be dispersed. Asylum seekers have been dispersed to 62 of these areas.

  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of asylum seekers have failed to comply with reporting requirements while awaiting(a) an initial decision and (b) removal. [997121]

  Beverley Hughes
  Information on the number of people who fail to comply with reporting requirements while awaiting initial decision, appeal decision or removal is not available and could be obtained by examination of individual case-files only at disproportionate cost.

  Asylum Support
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average(a)set-up costs and (b) weekly revenue costs of units of accommodation supplied by local authorities under NASS arrangements are; and what projections he has made of annual increases in those costs. [99077]

  Beverley Hughes
  I am unable to give details of prices paid by the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) for accommodation due to its commercially sensitive nature. Any disclosure of this kind could have an adverse effect on future contract negotiations for accommodation.

  Each contract has within it a contract price review mechanism that is linked to the rate of inflation and it is expected that any increases of this type will be offset by efficiency savings made within NASS as a whole. NASS is committed to maintaining unit costs at current levels or below representing an annual efficiency saving equivalent to inflation.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to hold(a) tribunals, and (b) interview sessions in the region of dispersal for asylum seekers dispersed under NASS arrangements. [99096]

  Beverley Hughes
  Asylum appeals to an adjudicator are listed into hearing centres around the country based on location of the appellant. Cases are listed by postcode in accordance with a list agreed with the judiciary. When fixing the venue, reasonable travelling distance, ease of journey and waiting times in the area are all taken into account to enable the case to be dealt speedily. The Immigration Appeal Tribunal's workload arises in consequence of hearings at the adjudicator tier. Each claimant is offered the facility to attend a hearing in the same region of the country in which the Adjudicator hearing took place. The claimant's representative may ask for a hearing elsewhere or in London.

  Recorded crime: number of offences recorded, by main offence groups—Derbyshire

  19971

  1998–992

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Violence against the person

  5,340

  8,509

  10,019

  9,236

  9,946

  Sexual offences

  528

  556

  546

  527

  651

  Robbery (total)

  396

  504

  584

  773

  1,029

  Burglary (total)

  17,302

  16,720

  15,536

  14,997

  16,564

  Theft and handling of stolen goods

  34,668

  36,742

  36,023

  33,780

  37,022

  Fraud and forgery

  1,308

  4,200

  4,739

  4,670

  4,719

  Criminal damage

  13,387

  14,316

  15,207

  14,997

  17,125

  Drugs offences

  3—

  1,689

  1,659

  1,374

  1,635

  Other offences

  863

  1,223

  1,337

  1,314

  1,150

  Total

  73,792

  84,459

  85,650

  81,668

  89,841

  1Recorded on a calendar year basis.

  2The number of crimes recorded in that financial year using the expanded offence coverage and revised counting rules which came into effect on 1 April 1998.

  3 Before 1 April 1998 the only drug offence recorded was "trafficking", which was included in the Other Offences group.

  Note:

  Numbers of recorded crimes will be affected by changes in reporting and recording. Derbyshire adopted the principles of the National Crime Recording Standard (NCRS) on 1 April 2002, when it was introduced across England and Wales, and therefore will not have affected the 2001–02 figures given in the table.
  818W
  Substantive asylum interviews are normally conducted in Croydon and Liverpool taking account, where possible, of the geographical location of the applicant. We have no current plans to extend these arrangements to other NASS dispersal regions.

  Case Decision
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to take a decision on the case of Mr. O Z of Aylesbury (reference Z1023416); and if he will make a statement. [99558]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 27 February 2003]: I am pleased to inform the hon. Member that a decision has now been taken on the case of Mr O Z. The Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) will write to Mr. O Z very shortly to inform him of the outcome of his case.

  Correspondence
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letter dated 29August 2002 from the hon. Member for North Southwark and Bermondsey, with regard to the Crime Reduction Fund. [99022]

  Mr. Denham
  I refer the hon. Member to my letter to him of 14 February on the crime reduction programme.

  Crime (Derbyshire)
  Mr. McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many offences were recorded by the Derbyshire police force in each year since 1997, broken down by category; [98897]

  (2) how many crimes there were, by major category, in Derbyshire, in each year since 1997. [98902]

  Mr. Denham
  The number of offences recorded by Derbyshire Constabulary, broken down by main offence group for the years requested, are given in the table.

  There was a change in counting rules for recorded crime on 1 April 1998, which would have the tendency to increase the number of offences counted. Numbers of offences before and after this date are therefore not directly comparable.
  819W
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) incidents of domestic violence were reported and (b) deaths resulting from domestic violence there were in (i) West Derbyshire and (ii) Derbyshire in each year since 1997. [98896]

  Mr. Denham
  Recorded crime figures are generally collected by legal definitions. Recorded crimes involving domestic violence will be recorded in a range of offences, along with offences which have been committed in other circumstances. Numbers of offences involving domestic violence are therefore not available from recorded crime data.

  The British Crime Survey (BCS) produced data by region for 2001/02, on the number of crimes of domestic violence recorded by the survey. However it does not provide information on domestic violence at a local level nor for individual police force areas.

  The BCS estimates that there were 188 crimes of domestic violence per 10,000 adults in the East Midlands region for interviews conducted in the 2001–02 financial year. This compares with 149 incidents per 10,000 adults in England and Wales as a whole.

  The BCS can also provide trend information on the number of incidents of domestic violence for England and Wales.

  Number of BCS incidents of domestic violence, 1997 to 2001–02 BSC interviews England and Wales

  (Thousands)

  1997

  1999

  2000

  2001–02 BSC interviews

  Domestic violence

  826

  787

  514

  635

  The BCS figures are estimates only. They are derived from a sample and so are subject to sampling error. Also, the context of the face-to-face BCS interview means the estimates are certain to be underestimates of the true extent because some respondents may be unwilling to reveal experience of domestic violence to interviewers. Results from the 1996 BCS self-completion module on domestic violence were published in Home Office Research Study No. 191, deposited in the Library. This more confidential approach to measurement revealed that the proportion of women that were victims in the last year of domestic assault was over three times higher than in the main BCS.

  Details of homicides by constituency are not held centrally. The available information relates to currently recorded offences of homicide (murder, manslaughter and infanticide) where the relationship of the victim to the suspect includes current or former spouse, cohabitant or lover. Information for England and Wales is as follows.

  Number of homicides by current or former spouse, cohabitant or lover, England and Wales

  Year

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  131

  104

  112

  127

  148

  820W
  As at 8 October 2002; figures are subject to revision as cases are dealt with by the police and by the courts, or as further information becomes available.

  Crime Indicators
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the key performance indicators used by his Department to measure crime. [99346]

  Mr. Denham
  [holding answer 26 February 2003]: The Home Office targets for the period April 2003 to March 2006 were published in the Home Office Targets Delivery Report on 13 February 2003.

  The target relating specifically to crime is as follows: Reduce crime and the fear of crime; improve performance overall, including the gap between the highest crime, Crime Disorder and Reduction Partnership Areas and the best comparable areas; and reduce:
  vehicle crime by 30 per cent. from 1998–99 to 2004;
  domestic burglary by 25 per cent. from 1998–99 to 2005;
  robbery in 10 Street Crime Initiative areas by 14 per cent. from 1999–2000 to 2005;
  and maintain that level.

  A report on progress against the Department's crime targets set in 2000 was published in the same document.

  Fylingdales
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he plans to give additional support to North Yorkshire police as a result of the upgrading of the Fylingdales radar station. [97773]

  Mr. Denham
  Since 11 September, police forces have been able to bid for additional funding for various counter terrorist activities, including the protection of vulnerable sites. Given the nature of the funding, publicity is not being given to the activities it covers or what has been allocated to individual forces.

  HMP/YOI Holloway
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he next plans to visit HMP/YOI Holloway; and if he will make a statement. [100231]

  Mr. Blunkett
  My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds Central, the Minister for Prisons, (Hilary Benn) visited Holloway on 23 September last year. My ministerial colleagues and I have an extensive programme of prison visits. I have recently indicated to the Governor of Holloway that I intend to visit that prison in the course of the next few months.

  Human Trafficking
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures are in place to encourage victims of human trafficking to collaborate with Home Office immigration and the appropriate law enforcement agencies; and if he will make a statement. [99444]

  Beverley Hughes
  The White Paper "Secure Borders, Safe Haven: integration with diversity within modern Britain"—published in February 2002—sets out our general proposals for assisting the victims of trafficking.
  821W
  We are developing a pilot scheme under which victims of trafficking who are willing to come forward to the authorities and help law enforcement against organised criminals will be offered protection and a range of support services such as counselling and health checks in safe accommodation

  We will also consider, in the light of individual circumstances, whether it would be appropriate to allow such victims who have co-operated to remain here. Where they are to return home, we will assist them to do so, providing them with initial counselling, ensuring that they have suitable accommodation to return to, and providing help to enable them to re-integrate into their own community and find employment.

  We are in discussion with the voluntary sector about the provision of these services.

  We plan to make an announcement about the start of the pilot shortly.

  Iraq
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Iraqi nationals from(a) the area of Iraq controlled by Saddam Hussein and (b) the Kurdish autonomous area have applied for asylum in the United Kingdom in each of the last 12 months. [100028]

  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 28 February 2003]14,940 asylum applications were lodged by Iraqi nationals in 2002 (excluding dependants). Asylum applications are recorded by nationality only and therefore it is not possible to say how many of the applicants originated from particular areas within Iraq. The number of those who applied by the claimed region of origin would therefore only be available by examination of individual case records at disproportionate cost. Information on the region from which applicants claim to originate may not be reliable as some applicants may falsely claim to come from areas where there is conflict.

  Information on asylum applications is published quarterly. The next publication will cover the first quarter of 2003, and will be available from 30 May 2003 on the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate web site at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/ rds/immigration1. html.

  Mr. Walter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what preparations he has made for the internment of Iraqi nationals in the event of a war with Iraq. [99691]

  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 27 February 2003]I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Salisbury (Robert Key) on 30 January 2003, Official Report, column 1041W.

  Leave to Remain
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Polish nationals, married to UK citizens, have applied for leave to remain in the UK in each of the last 12 months. [99986]

  Beverley Hughes
  The latest available statistics are given in the following table.
  822W
  The information relates to grants of leave to remain on the basis of marriage to a British citizen in each month in 2001. Data for 2002 will be published later this year.

  Information on the number of applications lodged or the number of such applications which have been refused are not currently available.

  Nationals of Poland granted leave to remain1 on the basis of marriage to a British citizen, by month, 2001

  January

  25

  February

  25

  March

  30

  April

  30

  May

  35

  June

  30

  July

  25

  August

  30

  September

  30

  October

  30

  November

  15

  December

  10

  Total

  315

  1> Excludes the outcome of appeals.

  Data rounded to the nearest 5

  Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the cost of the Office of the Immigration Services Commission in 2002–03 to(a) the Home Office and (b) other public bodies; and how many (i) public bodies, (ii) private bodies and (iii) private individuals are (A) registered with and (B) registered exempt from registration with the OISC. [98811]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner (OISC) is solely funded by Home Office grant-in-aid and was allocated £3,442,466 for 2002–03.

  As of 25 February 2003, the OISC had registered 206 immigration advisers acting for profit and exempted 992 acting not for profit. All those registered are private bodies, of which 32 are individuals. Of those exempted, eight are public bodies and the remainder are private bodies (for example charities and voluntary groups) of which six are individuals.

  Passport Agency
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list for each of the last 12 months the average time a passport application took to be processed by the UK Passport Agency; and if he will make a statement. [98721]

  Beverley Hughes
  During the last 12 months the United Kingdom Passport Service (UKPS) has delivered passports effectively and securely.

  Despite higher than anticipated demand levels for part of the year, UKPS maintained fully satisfactory turnaround times for the delivery of passports. The breakdown of average passport turnaround times on a month by month basis from February 2002 until January 2003 is as follows.
  823W

  Month

  Days

  February

  3.36

  March

  3.77

  April

  3.86

  May

  4.15

  June

  4.53

  July

  4.80

  August

  5.12

  September

  3.89

  October

  3.45

  November

  3.09

  December

  2.87

  January

  3.01

  These figures are calculated from the date of the mailbag in which the application is received and ending on the date the passport is printed. In this operational year (April 2002 to March 2003), UKPS is processing 99.46 per cent. of all straight-forward properly completed applications within 10 days.

  Police
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) police officers and (b) police support staff there were in England in each year from 1980–81 to 2003–04 (planned); and if he will make a statement. [99807]

  Mr. Denham
  Information about the number of police officers and civilian staff for each force can be found in the Annual Reports of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Constabulary until 1995–96. Thereafter the data can be found in Home Office Statistical Bulletins on police strength in England and Wales from March 1998 until March 2002, copies of which are in the Library.

  Figures for March 2003 are not yet available. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has set a target for there to be 130,000 officers by March 2003 and 132,500 officers in 2004, but he has not set targets for numbers of civilian staff. Forces are on track to achieve the targets for police officer numbers.

  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the increase in police numbers is in 2003–04, broken down by(a) Crime Fighting Fund and (b) locally funded additional officers; and if he will make a statement. [99902]

  Mr. Denham
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has set a target for there to be 132,500 officers in 2004.

  Apart from ring-fenced provision for a particular purpose, such as the Crime Fighting Fund, decisions about police budgets and the allocation of resources, including planned numbers of officers, are matters for Police Authorities and Chief Officers. Details of force plans for locally funded increases in strength are not collected centrally.

  Under the Crime Fighting Fund (CFF) recruitment initiative police forces in England and Wales have been allocated 9,000 recruits over and above the forces' previous recruitment plans for the three years to March 2003. Funding for these officers will continue in 2003–04.
  824W
  The CFF will continue in 2003–04 and we will fund 75 per cent. of the cost of new recruits through CFF rather than 100 per cent. as in the past three years. Funding should be sufficient for forces to recruit a further 650 police officers through this fund.

  Police Authorities
  Dr. Pugh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what would the financial effect be of a 20 per cent. reduction in the grant allocated to police authorities in each authority in the metropolitan counties. [92317]

  Mr. Denham
  Police Grant, Revenue Support Grant and National Non-domestic Rate income for the six provincial metropolitan police authorities increased by 4.9 per cent for 2003/04.

  The financial effect of a notional reduction of 20 per cent. in the 2003–04 grant would be as follows:

  £ million

  Police authority

  Grunt 2003–04

  Effect of 20 per cent.

  Greater Manchester

  380.8

  -76.1

  Merseyside

  240.5

  -48.1

  Northumberia

  214.3

  -42.9

  South Yorkshire

  172.3

  -34.5

  West Midlands

  386.5

  -77.3

  West Yorkshire

  289.4

  -57.8

  Total

  1,683.6

  -336.7

  In contrast to the question, Central Government spending in the Police Service will increase by 16 per cent. in cash terms over the Spending Review 2002 period.

  Radioactive Material
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what means are used to detect the illegal passage of radioactive, weapons-grade material through British ports. [98851]

  Mr. Blunkett
  Since the terrorist attacks in the United States on 11 September 2001, the Government has conducted a thorough comprehensive review of all preventative measures to counter terrorism, including the possibility to which the hon Member refers. This has included trials at UK ports of equipment designed to detect such material. For security reasons, I do not want to disclose further details of these measures.

  Wheeler Report
  Laura Moffatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the report on airport security by Sir John Wheeler; and if he will make a statement. [99607]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The position remains as described in my answer of 3 December 2002, Official Report, column 659W, to my hon. Friend. Having considered carefully the findings and recommendations in Sir John Wheeler's report, the Government were happy to accept in principle all of them. The Department for Transport and the Home

  825W
  Office are working closely together on implementation, involving as appropriate the police, other control agencies and the aviation industry.

  Work Permits
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the reciprocity in work permit arrangements between the Isle of Man and the UK. [99281]

  Beverley Hughes
  There are no reciprocal arrangements in place between the Isle of Man and the UK in relation to work permits. The holder of a work permit issued by the Home Office would need to obtain separate authority from the Isle of Man's authorities before undertaking work in the Isle of Man, even if that work was incidental to their employment in the United Kingdom.

  Xhevat Murtezi
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when a decision will be made on the case of Xhevat Murtezi of Westcliff-on-Sea, ref M1010576 and ML/LAB 19953. [99144]

  Beverley Hughes
  I am pleased to inform the hon. Member that a decision has now been made on Mr. Murtezi's case. The Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) will be writing to him very shortly to inform him of the outcome.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Areas of Special Scientific Interest
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which areas of special scientific interest in Northern Ireland are recognised by the European Union. [99354]

  Angela Smith
  In my response to PQ 438, I listed the sites in Northern Ireland classified under the Birds Directive and proposed for designation under the Habitats Directive. These sites have also been declared as Areas of Special Scientific Interest (ASSIs) under the Nature Conservation and Amenity Lands (Northern Ireland) Order (1985), with the exception of those sites, or parts thereof, which are subtidal. A full list of ASSIs is published on the website of the Environment and Heritage Service—www.nics.gov.uk/ehs. As ASSIs are declared under domestic legislation, there is therefore no provision for their recognition by the European Union.

  Belfast City Airport
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether Government grants will be made available for further development of Belfast City Airport. [99415]

  Angela Smith
  There are no plans to make grants available for any further development of this airport.
  826W
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will commission an independent environmental and economic assessment into the proposed development of Belfast City Airport. [99416]

  Angela Smith
  The Department of the Environment has not received any proposals for development at Belfast City Airport. Any necessary assessments will be considered in the context of any specific proposals put forward to Planning Service by the Belfast City Airport authority.

  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the local community consultations procedures being followed in assessing noise consequences of growth in airport operations at Belfast City Airport. [99565]

  Angela Smith
  The Department for Regional Development is currently undertaking a review of noise pollution at all Northern Ireland airports.

  During the course of this study the Department has actively sought to involve and consult local residents' groups as well as the Belfast City Airport Forum.

  The Department has also shared with interested groups the findings of the initial scoping study and plans to make the final report available in due course.

  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to change the night flights curfew of 9.30 pm to 6.30 am at Belfast City Airport; and whether changes require a full public inquiry. [99566]

  Angela Smith
  The Department of the Environment's Planning Service and Belfast City Airport have a planning agreement, signed in January 1997, under Article 40 of the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1991. This agreement includes controls on operating hours to restrict scheduled flights to between 06.30 hours and 21.30 hours. The agreement makes provision for delayed flights to arrive between 21.30 hours and 23.59 hours.

  To date, no formal approach has been made to Planning Service seeking provision to be made for later flights. The need for a public inquiry is a matter for consideration in the light of any changes proposed to operations at Belfast City Airport.

  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate he has made of whether Belfast City Airport will exceed 1,500,000 seats for sale on Scheduled Flights in the next 12 months as specified in Article 40 Agreement dated 22 January 1997 between Belfast City Airport, Short Bros and the Department of Environment for Northern Ireland. [99567]

  Angela Smith
  The Department of the Environment's Planning Service and Belfast City Airport have a planning agreement, signed in January 1997, under Article 40 of the Planning (Northern Ireland) Order 1991. This agreement includes limits on the number of seats offered for sale on scheduled flights to 1,500,000 seats in any 12-month period.

  I am not in a position to estimate whether Belfast City Airport will exceed the allocated 1,500,000 seats for sale on Scheduled Flights in the next 12 months.
  827W
  The agreement requires Belfast City Airport to provide information to Planning Service in order to maintain compliance with the agreement. To date, the information has indicated that the number of seats offered for sale has been within the limit specified. The latest monitoring figures available from Belfast City Airport indicate that the number of seats offered for sale up to 30 September 2002 was 1,479,267 and is therefore close to the 1,500,000 limit. Planning Service has requested information from Belfast City Airport regarding numbers of seats offered for sale for the 12 months up to 31 January 2003, and projected figures for-seats offered for sale for the next 12 months taking account of any change to services currently being negotiated.

  Planning Service officials have arranged to meet with representatives from BelfastCity Airport shortly to discuss the position.

  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the Department of Regional Development has been consulted by the authorities at Belfast City Airport with regard to the hours of operation of that airport. [99975]

  Angela Smith
  This is a matter for the Department of the Environment and not the Department for Regional Development. However, no formal approach has been made to either Department.

  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what procedures the Department of the Environment intends to follow on receipt of an application to amend the present planning agreement governing the operation of Belfast City Airport. [99976]

  Angela Smith
  It should be noted that the Department of the Environment has not yet received any request from Belfast City Airport to alter the terms of the existing agreement.

  Upon receipt of an application to amend the present planning agreement governing the operation of Belfast City Airport, the Department of the Environment would examine the application on its merits. In particular, this would involve considering whether a new planning agreement was required and the most appropriate method of dealing with the application, including the possibility of holding a public inquiry.

  Education Spending
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) how this year's allocation to the normal spending plans for the Department of Education is to be distributed between(a) state controlled schools, (b) Catholic maintained schools, (c) integrated schools and (d) Irish medium schools; [99414]

  (2) how much is to be invested in (a) state controlled schools, (b) Catholic maintained schools, (c) integrated schools and (d) Irish medium schools as part of the recently announced investment in Northern Ireland. [99413]

  Jane Kennedy
  The education element of the recently announced £2 billion investment amounted to £300 million. This is the largest ever announcement of 828W
  capital investment projects in the Northern Ireland schools estate. It includes £263.1 million in relation to 43 major works projects with the balance comprised of:
  Capital costs of development of grant maintained integrated schools, subject to the achievement of full grant maintained status—£16.2 million
  Removal of temporary classrooms—£10 million
  Schools disabled access—£10 million
  Youth Service—£l million.

  The major works projects announced for initial release are based on an assessment of educational need and not on school sector. The capital value, including public-private partnership projects, is as follows:

  £ million

  Capital value

  (a) Controlled schools

  135.1

  (b) Catholic maintained schools

  25.2

  (c) Grant maintained integrated schools

  7.2

  (d) Irish medium schools

  Nil

  (e) Other voluntary schools (including voluntary grammar)

  95.6

  Included in the above schemes are projects, which have been funded from the Department of Education's normal baseline resources, amounting to:

  £ million

  (a) Controlled schools

  11.9

  (b) Catholic maintained schools

  12.0

  (c) Grant maintained integrated schools

  5.1

  (d) Irish medium schools

  Nil

  (e) Other voluntary schools (including voluntary grammar)

  24.0

  The total value of the projects funded from the Department of Education baseline funds amounts to £53 million, of which £39 million is attributed to 2004–05 and 2005–06 financial years.

  Health and Social Care Groups
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the operation of Local Health and Social Care Groups in Northern Ireland. [99337]

  Mr. Browne
  All 15 Local Health and Social Care Groups (LHSCGs) have been established. 195 of the management board positions have been filled and chairs have been elected for each group. Unfortunately, GPs have not to date taken up their places on the groups. However, I recently met with GP representatives and further discussions are planned with the profession.

  In their first year of operation, LHSCGs have been attending to internal organisational and personal development needs. They have also been making important decisions about primary care development in their respective areas. They have been allocated more than £ 3million, recovered from the administrative costs following the ending of GP fundholding, to address service gaps which they have identified in primary care, and have provided a boost to the basic primary care infrastructure through the purchase of much needed equipment for health centres, GPs and other primary care providers.

  Health Improvement Authority
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the(a) setting-up costs and (b) estimated running costs for the proposed Northern Ireland Health Improvement Authority are. [99307]

  Mr. Browne
  The new authority will be known as the Health and Personal Social Services Regulation and Improvement Authority.

  The setting-up costs are estimated to be £250,000.

  The running costs are estimated to be around £5.6 million per annum.

  Hospital Staff (Assaults)
  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) verbal and (b) physical assaults on staff in general hospitals were reported in Northern Ireland in the last 12 months. [99563]

  Mr. Browne
  The information is not available in the format requested. However, in the financial year 2001–02, a total of 2,438 assaults (both verbal and physical) were reported in all health and personal social services trusts.

  Imported Waste
  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what legislation is in place on the importation of waste from another country. [99972]

  Angela Smith
  The Transfrontier Shipment of Waste Regulations 1994 make provision for the supervision and control of shipments of waste within, into and out of the European Community.

  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much waste has been imported from the Republic of Ireland to Northern Ireland by council area in each of the last three years; and what revenue was generated by each council area as a result. [99973]

  Angela Smith
  The import of waste within, into and out of the European Community is governed by the Transfrontier Shipment of Waste Regulations 1994. Under that legislation, district councils are the competent authorities for the purposes of recording the import of waste. My Department has no statutory responsibility in this area.

  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps are being taken to ensure that EU legislation regarding the importation of waste is complied with; and if he will list instances when this legislation has been breached in the last 12 months. [99974]

  Angela Smith
  The movement of waste within, into and out of the European Community is governed by the Transfrontier Shipment of Waste Regulations 1994. Under that legislation, District Councils are the competent authority for the purposes of recording the import and export of waste, and the provision of powers of enforcement are a matter for HM Custom and Excise. My Department has no statutory responsibility in this area.

  Independent Financial Advice
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people are registered in Northern Ireland to provide independent financial advice; how many companies provide independent financial advice in Northern Ireland; how many people are employed in the independent financial advice sector in Northern Ireland; how many companies provide financial advice in Northern Ireland; and how many employees work in the financial advice sector in Northern Ireland. [99324]

  Ruth Kelly
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Financial Services Authority (the FSA) tell me there are approximately 100 firms of independent financial advisers based in Northern Ireland, plus 29 authorised professional firms (lawyers or accountants which are directly regulated by the FSA).

  There are also a number of professional firms who may give financial advice who are regulated by the designated professional bodies, such as the Law Society of Northern Ireland, rather than by the FSA.

  In addition, many firms based elsewhere in the United Kingdom provide financial advice, whether or not independent, in Northern Ireland. The FSA do not have detailed employment data of the type sought.

  Insurance Premium Increases
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will establish an independent review of the effect upon business in Northern Ireland of recent increases in insurance premiums. [99321]

  Mr. Pearson
  The current difficulties in the insurance market are having a particularly adverse impact on a predominantly Small and Medium Enterprise based economy such as that in Northern Ireland. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Investment has conducted a business survey on insurance costs. It indicates an average increase of 28 per cent. in 2001 and further an average increase of 49 per cent. in 2002 particularly (but not exclusively) in employers' liability and property insurance. The results of this survey will be fed into Government's current review in which my officials are participating. The outcome of the review will be reported to Ministers by the end of March 2003.

  Mental Health Staff (Assaults)
  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) verbal and (b) physical assaults on staff in mental health and learning disability centres in Northern Ireland were reported in the last 12 months. [99564]

  Mr. Browne
  The information is not available in the format requested. I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply given today to question reference 99563.

  Office of Fair Trading Report
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (1) what representations he has received from his policy directorate concerned with consumer affairs on the implications for community-based pharmacists in Northern Ireland, the publication
  831W
  of the Office of Fair Trading report on "The Control of Entry of Regulations and Retail Pharmacy Services in the UK"; and if he will make a statement; [99349]

  (2) whether he has plans to make Beta Interferon more widely available in Northern Ireland for treatment of multiple sclerosis; [99317]

  (3) whether he has made representations to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry on the recent report by the Office of Fair Trading on "The Control of Entry Regulations and Retail Pharmacy Services in the UK"; and if he will make a statement; [99302]

  (4) what assessment he has made of the impact on the recommendations in Investing for Health 2002 of the report by the Office of Fair Trading on "The Control of Entry Regulations and Retail Pharmacy Services in the UK"; [99301]

  (5) what discussions he has held with the General Consumer Council (Northern Ireland) on the implications of the report by the Office of Fair Trading on "The Control of Entry Regulations and Retail Pharmacy Services in the UK" for a balanced and sustainable provision of state services; and if he will make a statement; [99299]

  (6) how many representations he has received on the Office of Fair Trading report on "The Control of Entry Regulations and Retail Pharmacy Services in the UK"; and if he will make a statement; [99303]

  (7) if he will commission a study into the economic impact of the Office of Fair Trading report on "The Control of Entry Regulations and Retail Pharmacy in the UK", with particular reference to the effects upon the rural economy; and if he will make a statement. [99300]

  Mr. Browne
  The Department of Health, Social Services and Public Safety is considering the report of the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) carefully, together with the implications the report has for patients and users in both rural and urban areas, for the pharmacy profession and for Health Service policy as a whole.

  The Department has invited views and is meeting key interests to hear their reactions to the report in order to help inform the Government response. As of 27 February, 14 written responses have been received. In addition, the Department sought the views of key interests, including community pharmacy, the Health Service, patient groups and the General Consumer Council, at a seminar on 20 February 2003. A written submission from the General Consumer Council is expected shortly.

  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is responsible for co-ordinating a response across Government to reports of this type. Competition and consumer matters are reserved to the United Kingdom Government in Westminster. However, Health Service pharmacy policy is a devolved matter and the regulations imposing controls on pharmacies are a matter for Ministers in each country. They will consider and determine how they wish to respond. That will be reflected in the overall Government response. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry is therefore working closely with Health Departments and other Government Departments to make sure that
  832W
  Government's response to the report takes account not only of competition and consumer interests, but wider public policy objectives.

  In considering the OFT report and its recommendations, the Department will take fully into account the views of all interests. It is too early to say what further economic or other information might be required.

  Police Service of Northern Ireland
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how frequently PSNI officers have to undergo sessions to re-classify in relation to firearms; how often Belfast International Airport police officers have to re-classify; and if he will make a statement. [98567]

  Jane Kennedy
  PSNI officers attend at least twice, preferably three times, a year for refresher firearms training on each respective weapon in which they are qualified.

  Following the Key Point Survey at Belfast International Airport in 1993, RUC/PSNI Training Branch recommended that Belfast International Airport police should re-classify in relation to firearms on a basis similar to that of RUC/PSNI officers.

TREASURY

  Advertising Campaigns
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer of 27 January 2003,Official Report, column 603W, on advertising campaigns, what the costs within the publicity campaign were of (a) advertising, (b) national and regional public relations and promotions, (c) the soaps, (d) partnerships, (e) the Census and (f) Wales counts; and if he will make a statement. [96200]

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

  Letter from L. Cook to Mr. Matthew Taylor, dated 3 March 2003:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question, pursuant to the answer of 27th January, Official Report, column 603W, on advertising campaigns, what the costs within the publicity campaign were of (a) advertising, (b) national and regional public relations and promotions, (c) the soaps,(d) partnerships,(e) Census and (f) Wales counts. (96200)
  For the Office for National Statistics to answer the question above, the costs are not readily available by the categories requested and can only be supplied at disproportionate cost. Please find below the publicity costs for 1997–2003.

  Office for National Statistics Publicity costs (£)

  1997/1998

  3,000

  1998/1999

  3,00

  1999/2000

  3,000

  2000/2001

  ∗1,272,000

  2001/2002

  ∗1,770,000

  2002/2003

  (estimated) ∗140,000

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics
  833W
  ∗ The large increase in expenditure since 2000/01 is a result of costs associated with the census of population in 2001.

  For National Savings and Investments, parts c, d, e and f of the question are not applicable. Information on advertising and national and regional public relations and promotions costs are given in the tables below.

  National Savings and Investments advertising costs (above and below the line) (£)

  1997/1998

  6,186,272

  1998/1999

  3,922,000

  1999/2000

  9,962,000

  2000/2001

  6,191,592

  2001/2002

  7,779,000

  2002/2003

  (estimated) 8,174,000

  Source:

  National Savings and Investments

  National Savings and Investments national and regional public relations and promotions costs (£)

  1997/1998

  135,897

  1998/1999

  166,340

  1999/2000

  268,060

  2000/2001

  243,014

  2001/2002

  369,449

  2002/2003

  (estimated) 470,000

  Source:

  National Savings and Investments

  Asbestos
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the compatibility of the arrangements for tax relief on work done to remove asbestos with the EU state aid rules. [98658]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Tax relief for work done to remove asbestos falls within the rules on relief for remediation of contaminated land. It is a general measure as it is available to all payers of Corporation tax and it is not therefore a state aid.

  Bank of International Settlements
  Mr. David Kidney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the governance of the Bank of International Settlements, with particular reference to(a) member control and (b) access to information. [99987]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Treasury has no formal responsibilities with respect to the governance of the Bank for International Settlements. The membership is comprised mainly of Central Banks. The Bank of England is a shareholder and the Governor of the Bank of England is on the Board of the BIS. Further information about the BIS is publicly available on its website (www.bis.org), in the annual report (published on 8 July) and from the BIS library and archive.

  Centenarians (Independent Living)
  Mr. MacDougall
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people aged 100 and over are living independently in the UK. [100558]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.
  834W
  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. John MacDougall dated 3 March 2003:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question concerning the number of persons aged 100 and over who are living independently in the UK. (100558)
  The number of persons aged 100 and over living in the United Kingdom in mid-2001 was estimated to be 8,100. It is not possible to say what proportion of these persons are living independently.

  Debt Management Office
  Mr. Archie Norman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the(a) total number of staff and (b) number of inspection staff employed by the Debt Management Office was in each year since 1997. [100212]

  Ruth Kelly
  The DMO was established on 1 April 1998; the average number of staff employed, on a full time equivalent basis, in each of the financial years since then has been:

  1998–99–24

  1999–2000–31

  2000–01–37

  2001–02–51

  2002–031—73

  The DMO does not employ inspection staff. However, it does employ staff engaged in audit and compliance functions; the numbers of these, on a full time equivalent basis2, have been:

  1998–99–1

  1999–2000–1

  2000–01–1

  2001–02–2

  2002–03–3

  1 The average number of staff over the 1 April 2002 to 27 February 2003 period. The increase in 2002–03 reflects the integration of the Public Works Loan Board and the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt into the DMO on 1 July 2002.

  2 Until 2000–01 the audit function was carried out by HM Treasury internal audit staff and not DMO staff employees.

  Earnings Statistics
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the average earnings of(a) male, (b) female and (c) male and female at age 60 were in each year since 2000. [99155]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Howard Flight, dated 3 March 2003:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question about the average earnings of people aged 60 in each year since 2000. (99155)
  The table below shows the average annual earnings for males and females aged 60 in April for each of the years specified. The data are from the New Earnings Survey and apply to people on adult rates whose pay was not affected by absence.
  835W

  Average annual earnings for people aged 60

  £

  Men

  Women

  All persons

  April 2000

  22,797

  14,811

  20,971

  April 2001

  22,943

  15,998

  21,314

  April 2002

  23,574

  16,216

  21,817

  EU Heads of Government Meeting
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on his Department's approach to the discussion of economic reform and the goal of full employment at the forthcoming EU Heads of Government meeting in Brussels. [100097]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Lisbon agenda of economic reform will be discussed at the forthcoming EU Heads of Government meeting in Brussels. The Treasury is fully engaged in discussion of economic reform within ECOFIN and its relevant associated committees.

  Euro
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what recent discussions on the single European currency there have been during meetings between Government officials and representatives of the Isle of Man. [99753]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer on 11 February 2002, columns 104–05W.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will make a statement on the implications of the report "Meeting the Challenge: Economic Reform in Europe" for the likelihood of entry to the euro; [100096]

  (2) whether UK entry to the euro is conditional upon economic reform in Europe. [100095]

  Ruth Kelly
  The determining factor underpinning any Government decision on membership of the single currency is the national economic interest and whether the economic case for joining is clear and unambiguous. A comprehensive and rigorous assessment of the five economic tests will be made within two years of the start of this Parliament.

  Fair Trade Products
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his policy is on the purchase, for departmental use, of fair trade products. [99222]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer the Chief Secretary gave to the hon. Member for Brent North (Mr. Gardiner) on 9 December 2002,Official Report, column 92W.

  Hospitality
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what criteria Ministers in his Department use when determining whether to offer hospitality in restaurants to interest groups at public expense; and if he will make a statement; [99586]
  836W
  (2) what hospitality has been offered at public expense in the last 12 months, by each Minister in his Department to outside interest groups, broken down by (a) restaurant, (b) recipient and (c) cost in each case; [99587]

  (3) how often Ministers in his Department have received hospitality in restaurants from outside groups in the last 12 months. [99510]

  Ruth Kelly
  All offers of hospitality are made in accordance with published departmental guidance on financial procedures and propriety, based on the principles set out in "Government Accounting". The giving and receiving of hospitality is conducted fully in accordance with the guidance set out in the "Ministerial Code", and "Guidance on Contacts with Outside Interest Groups including Lobbyists". The detailed information requested is not held in the form requested, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Individual Savings Accounts
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what the take up rate was in the last five years of PEPs and TESSAs for individuals earning up to(a) £10,000, (b) £15,000, (c) £20,000, (d) £25,000, (e) £30,000 and (f) over £30,000; [99031]

  (2) what the take up rate was for the last five years of PEPs and TESSAs for individuals in each of the income tax bands that applied to earnings at this time; [99030]

  (3) What the take up rate for ISAs has been for each year since introduction for individuals in each of the income tax bands that applied to earnings during this period. [99029]

  Ruth Kelly
  Estimates are not available in the terms specified or for all time periods, but those estimates that are available are contained in the following table.

  This compares the holding of TESSAs or PEPs in 1998–99, the last year when subscriptions could be made to these products, with the first three years of ISAs.

  The estimates are based on the Family Resources Surveys 1998–99 to 2001–02 and relate to those reporting holding these products, as the Survey does not separately identify those who are subscribing to them in the year. As take-up built during the first three years of ISAs the total number reporting holdings is lower than that suggested from administrative sources, particularly in 1999–2000.

  Note that the earnings group 'Less than £10,000' includes individuals with no reported earnings; many in this group will be pensioners.

  Percentage of individuals holding a TESSA or PEP in 1998–99 compared with the percentage of individuals holding an ISA in 1999–2000 to 2001–02

  Annual earnings (lower limits, £)

  TESSA or PEP 1998–99

  ISA 1999–2000

  ISA 2000–01

  ISA 2001–02

  Less than £10,000

  15%

  7%,

  15%

  20%

  £10,000–£14,999

  15%

  8%

  16%

  19%

  £15,000–£19,999

  17%

  9%

  18%

  22%

  £20,000–£24,999

  22%

  10%

  22%

  25%

  £25,000–£29,999

  24%

  13%,

  25%

  31%

  Over £30,000

  33%

  14%

  31%

  37%

  Insurance Tax Premium
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much insurance tax premium was collected in(a) the UK and (b) Northern Ireland in each of the last five years. [99319]

  Ruth Kelly
  The total amount of insurance premium tax collected in the UK can be found on the HM Customs and Excise website: www.hmce.gov.uk/about/ reports/ann-report/n2.pdf. The total collected for the last five years is as follows:

  £million

  Total tax receipts

  1997–98

  1,044

  1998–99

  1,245

  1999–2000

  1,423

  2000–01

  1,707

  2001–02

  1,861

  Separate data on the amount of insurance premium tax collected in Northern Ireland are not available.

  Labour Market Participation
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what the rates of participation in the labour market were of people aged between(a) 18 and 35, (b) 35 and 50, (c) 50 and 65 and (d) 65 and 75, in (i) 1992, (ii) 1982 and (iii) 1973; [100452]

  (2) what the participation rate is of people in the labour market aged between (a) 18 and 35, (b) 35 and 50, (c) 50 and 65 and (d) 65 and 75. [100451]

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

  Letter from John Pullinger to Mr. Edward O'Hara, dated 3 March 2003:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Questions about economic activity rates. I am replying in his absence. (100451, 100452)
  The table overleaf gives estimates of economic activity rates by age for the three month periods ending May 1984, May 1992 and May 2002. These estimates are from the Labour Force Survey (LFS) and are not seasonally adjusted. This information is not available for 1973 and 1982.

  Economic activity rates1 by age United Kingdom (percentage), not seasonally adjusted

  March to May

  19842

  19923

  20023

  All aged 16 and over

  62.1

  62.9

  62.6

  16 to 59/644

  77.6

  78.7

  78.2

  18 to 34

  79.7

  80.1

  80.1

  35 to 49

  83.6

  85.9

  85.0

  50 to 59/644

  69.8

  69.1

  70.4

  60/654

  8.2

  8.4

  8.7

  1Total economically active as a percentage of all persons in the relevant age group.

  2 Data not adjusted for the Census 2001 results.

  3 Data adjusted for the 2001 Census results.

  4Economic activity rates are usually given for the working age population. This is defined as men aged 16 to 64 and women aged 16 to 59. The age groups in this table reflect that definition.

  Source:

  ONS Labour Force Survey.
  838W
  Mr. O'Hara
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the projected participation rates of people in the labour market are, given current trends, for the year 2012. [100453]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government's projection framework goes up to 2006 and it does not forecast directly participation rates. However, the Treasury's trend output growth projections imply an estimated trend increase in the working age activity rate i.e. labour market participation rate of 0.1 percentage point a year up to Q4 2006. Further details are available in "Trend Growth: Recent Developments and Prospects", published by HM Treasury in April 2002.

  Laptop Computers
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many laptop computers were used by(a) Ministers and special advisers and (b) officials in his Department in each year since 1995; how many were (i) lost and (ii) stolen; what their cost was; and if he will make a statement. [98705]

  Ruth Kelly
  Current Treasury records simply assign ownership of laptops and other small equipment to Budget centres within the Department, and so a distinction between(a) and (b) is not made.

  Year

  Stock

  Cost/£

  Stolen

  <1995

  111

  194,030

  2

  1996

  + 145

  299,421

  1

  1997

  + 59

  132,982

  3

  1998

  + 15

  33,967

  1

  1999

  +111

  221,801

  2

  2000

  + 135

  301,497

  1

  2001

  + 100

  168,543

  2

  2002

  +35

  69,053

  5

  Notes:

  1. All recorded losses of laptops have been due to theft. The figure for 2002 does not include 16 old and redundant laptops that were removed without authorisation from a temporary stockroom during the move to new accommodation.

  2. The totals above indicate acquisitions and do not reflect the actual number in use, which is affected by occasional stock holding and by old equipment being replaced with newer models. At present the number of laptops supported is about 300.

  Private Sector Businesses (Forms)
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the forms that his Department requires private sector businesses to complete and return. [98089]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Treasury does not require private sector businesses to complete and return any forms, although the Debt Management Office, an executive agency of the Treasury, requires the 16 investment banks that act as Gilt-edged Market Makers (GEMMs) to report weekly on their turnover in gilts. This data is then aggregated and sent to the GEMMs so they can assess their gilt market share.

  It would be impractical to list all forms the Inland Revenue uses, although Inland Revenue business forms are available on their website: www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk. However, the Inland Revenue database does not

  839W
  differentiate between forms for completion and return and material on guidance for operating PAYE and/or tax credits.

  In respect of Customs and Excise the information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  The information with regard to the Office for National Statistics (ONS) is as follows:

  Office for National Statistics-Business Inquiries

  Survey of British Enterprise Research and Development

  Monthly inquiry into the Production Industries

  Monthly inquiry into the Distribution and Service Sector

  Monthly Stocks inquiry

  Annual PROCOM Inquiry

  Quarterly PRODCOM Inquiry

  Quarterly Stocks inquiry

  Quarterly Non Production Stocks

  Quarterly Capital Expenditure Inquiry

  Quarterly Profits Inquiry

  Retail Sales Inquiry

  Merchants Inquiry

  Quarterly Inquiry into International Trade in Service

  Annual Inquiry into International Trade in Service

  Annual Film and Television

  Corporate Services Price Index

  Annual Foreign Direct Investment in the UK

  Annual Foreign Direct Investment Overseas

  Quarterly Foreign Direct Investment in the UK

  Quarterly Foreign Direct Investment Overseas

  Motor Vehicle Production Inquiry (Cars)

  Motor Vehicle Production Inquiry (Engines)

  Quarterly Survey of Financial Assets and Liabilities

  Acquisitions and Mergers Inquiry

  Quarterly Inquiries into Insurance Companies (QIIC)—

  Long Term Funds—Transactions in Financial Assets

  QIIC-General Funds—Transactions in Financial Assets

  QIIC—Long Term Funds—Income and Expenditure

  QIIC—General Funds—Transactions in Financial Assets

  Annual Inquiries into Insurance Companies (AIIC)—

  Long Term Funds—Balance Sheet

  AIIC-General Funds—Balance Sheet

  AIIC-Long Term—Funds Income and Expenditure

  AIIC—General Funds—Income and Expenditure

  Quarterly Inquiries into Pension Funds—Transaction in Financial Assets

  Quarterly Inquiries into Pension Funds—Income and Expenditure

  Annual inquiry into Pension Funds—Balance Sheets

  Unit Trusts—Assets and Liabilities—Annual

  Unit Trust—Transactions—Quarterly

  Investment Trusts—Annual Return of Liabilities

  Investment Trusts—Quarterly Return of Transactions

  Securities Dealers—Overseas Direct Investment—Quarterly

  Property Unit Trusts—Assets and Liabilities—Annual

  Property Unit Trusts—Transactions Quarterly

  Securities Dealers—Assets, Liabilities and Transactions—Quarterly

  Securities Dealers—Income and Expenditure—Quarterly

  Monthly Credit Grantors

  Monthly Producer Price Index

  840W

  Monthly Export Price Index

  Monthly Wages and Salaries

  Quarterly Inquiries into the Distribution and Service Sector

  New Earnings Survey

  Monthly Import Price Index

  Quarterly Inquiry into the Number of Employees in Local Government

  Monthly Producer Price Index—Recruitment

  Imported Capital Goods

  Quarterly Asset Finance Inquiries

  Annual Asset Finance Inquiries

  Survey onto Business Spending on Capital Goods

  Quarterly Dividends Inquiry Vacancies Inquiry

  E-Commence Inquiry

  Export Prices Inquiry (Recruitment)

  Import Prices Inquiry (Recruitment)

  Imported Capital Goods Inquiry (Recruitment)

  Annual Business Inquiry Part 1 Employment

  Annual Business Inquiry Part 2 Financial

  Annual Register Inquiry (1)

  Annual Register Inquiry (2)

  Monthly Inquiry of Internet Service Providers

  Labour Disputes

  Inquiries carried out for OGD

  Quarterly Oil and Natural Gas

  Quarterly Fuels Inquiry

  Quarterly Sand and Gravel

  Quarterly Concrete Blocks

  Quarterly Roofing Tiles

  Quarterly Fibre Cement

  Quarterly Slate

  Monthly Concrete Blocks

  Building Materials Inquiry—Annual Ready Mix Concrete—Monthly Bricks

  Marine Dredged Sites

  Annual Minerals Raised

  Electricity Generated Inquiry

  Quarterly Electricity

  Quarterly Railway Investment Inquiry

  Construction Industry Statistics

  Stamp Duty
  Mr. John Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received about the number of house buyers who have unnecessarily paid stamp duty because of inaccurate information provided by the Inland Revenue relating to post codes; how many people have been affected; and if he will make a statement. [98547]

  John Healey
  Relief from stamp duty in disadvantaged areas was implemented by this Government on 30 November 2001, exempting from stamp duty all property transactions below £150,000 in around 2,000 of the most deprived areas of the UK. We intend to abolish this cap for non-residential property this year.

  Qualifying areas in England, Wales and Northern Ireland are defined in regulations by reference to electoral wards. As with other tax reliefs, the onus is on the customer to claim this relief. To help customers to

  841W
  identify whether they can claim the relief, the Inland Revenue has made available a postcode search facility on its website. The Inland Revenue is aware that there have been some problems with this tool, particularly where properties straddle ward boundaries or are new developments. As soon as the Inland Revenue has become aware of any shortcomings in the system, they have rectified them and any customer who has paid stamp duty and subsequently discovers relief was due may claim a full repayment of the duty with interest from the Inland Revenue. As an indication of the number of people who have not claimed the relief but have subsequently claimed a repayment, the Inland Revenue currently processes around 300 claims for repayment per month.

  Suicide
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many suicides have been recorded in each of the last 10 years for(a) males under 18, (b) females under 18, (c) males over 18 and (d) females over 18. [100549]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Tim Loughton, dated 3 March 2003:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question concerning how many suicides have been recorded in each of the last ten years for (a) males under 18, (b) females under 18, (c) males over 18 and (d) females over 18.
  The most recent available mortality data are for the calendar year 2001. Figures for each year from 1992 to 2001 are given in the table below.

  Number of deaths from suicide and injury undetermined whether accidentally or purposely inflicted,1 by sex, England and Wales, 1992 to 20012

  Calendar year

  Number of deaths (a) males under 18

  (b) females under 18

  (c) males 18 and over

  (d) females 18 and over

  1992

  51

  23

  4,009

  1,403

  1993

  63

  30

  3,812

  1,346

  1994

  65

  21

  3,822

  1,236

  1995

  43

  35

  3,787

  1,292

  1996

  54

  25

  3,600

  1,214

  1997

  56

  30

  3,666

  1,229

  1998

  66

  21

  3,863

  1,204

  1999

  53

  27

  3,851

  1,257

  2000

  66

  25

  3,593

  1,238

  2001

  52

  17

  3,486

  1,150

  1The cause of death wad defined using the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (ICD-9) codes E950-E959 and E980-E989 excluding E988.8 for the years 1992 to 2000, and, for the year 2001, the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes X60-X84 and Y10-Y34 excluding Y33.9 where the Coroner's verdict was pending.

  2 Figures are for deaths registered in 1992 and for deaths occurring in each calendar year from 1993 to 2001.

  Work Force Statistics
  Mr. Wray: To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of the working population is in (a) part-time and (b) full-time jobs. [100479]
  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. James Wray, dated 3 March 2003:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question about part-time and full-time employment. (100479)
  The estimates from the Labour Force Survey for the three month period ending December 2002 are 74.5 per cent of people in employment are employed full-time and 25.5 per cent are employed part-time. These estimates are seasonally adjusted.

  Written Questions
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many named day written questions were tabled to the Department between 15 October 2002 and 24 February 2003; how many that received a holding answer were given a substantive answer(a) within three days, (b) within seven days, (c) within 14 days, (d) within 28 days and (e) over 28 days later; and what procedures the Department has in place to monitor performance on answering (i) Parliamentary Questions and (ii) ministerial letters. [99426]

  John Healey
  273 of the 369 Named Day questions tabled to Treasury Ministers in the period concerned (74 per cent.) received replies on the nominated day for answering. Of the 96 remaining questions, 23 received replies within three days of the nominated day, 46 within a week, 19 within 28 days, and eight over 28 days.

  Treasury Ministers attach a high importance to parliamentary questions on time. Performance is monitored continually by officials and reported regularly to Minister. Ministers also receive regular reports on correspondence: 78 per cent. of letters to Ministers are currently being answered within 15 working days, an increase from 44 per cent. in 1999.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Anti-personnel Mines
  Brian White
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent steps the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has taken to promote the Convention on the prohibition of the use, stockpiling, production and transfer of anti-personnel mines. [99666]

  Mr. Rammell
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has lead responsibility within government for humanitarian demining issues, including the Ottawa Convention. This involves playing a full role in the follow-up process to the Convention, including participation in the annual Meeting of States Parties, the most recent of which was held in September 2002. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has also recently assumed the chair of the Sponsorship Committee, a Geneva-based body responsible for determining levels of assistance to States Parties and aspirant countries which would otherwise be financially unable to attend, and has contributed £25,000 to the Committee's funds. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has also recently funded an exploratory visit to the Russian Federation by a UK ordnance expert in connection with
  843W
  the possible establishment of a trust fund for the destruction of stockpiled PFM
  anti-personnel landmines.

  Balbir Singh Bonnis
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the progress of the application for a visa to return to the UK by Mr. Balbir Singh Bonnis; and on what grounds the processing of this visa application has been delayed. [98460]

  Mr. Rammell
  The case was referred to the Immigration and Nationality Directorate of the Home Office by the High Commission in New Delhi on 10 September 2002. The Home Office are considering the case and will make a decision shortly.

  Biochemical Weapons
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to his answer of 13 February 2003 to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson),Official Report, column 107W, what the biochemical weapons referred to by US Defence Secretary Rumsfeld on 5 February 2003 in his testimony before the House Armed Services Committee are. [99673]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I understand US Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, in his evidence on 5 February to the US House Armed Services Committee, was referring to non-lethal Riot Control Agents. He went on to acknowledge that the United States has undertaken not to use any such Agents as a method of warfare. This prohibition applies to all States Parties to the CWC. Riot Control Agents are defined under the CWC as any chemical not listed in a Schedule which can produce rapidly in humans sensory irritation or disabling physical effects which disappear within a short time following termination of exposure.

  Broadcast Services (Funding)
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his estimate is of the net cost to his Department of(a) the London Radio Service and (b) the British Satellite News, in each year from 1996–97 to 2003–04 (planned); what the purpose is of these two services; and if he will make a statement. [99122]

  Mr. MacShane
  [holding answer 26 February 2003]: LRS and BSN were established in order to promote Britain and HMG's policies overseas.

  The net cost of London Radio Service (LRS) was as follows:

  1 August 1997 to 31 July 1998: £1.400 million

  1 August 1998 to 31 July 1999: £1.426 million

  1 August 1999 to 31 July 2000: £1.458 million

  1 August 2000 to 30 September 2001: £1.820 million

  1 October 2001 to 30 September 2002: £1.573 million at which point the service was terminated.

  844W
  The net cost of British Satellite News is as follows:

  1 October 1997 to 30 September 1998: £1.676 million

  1 October 1998 to 30 September 1999: £1.703 million

  1 October 1999 to 30 September 2000: £1.718 million

  1 October 2000 to 30 September 2001: £2.182 million

  1 October 2001 to 30 September 2002: £2.221 million

  1 October 2002 to 30 September 2003: £1.25 million at which point BSN was streamlined from a global service to one that focused primarily on the Islamic and Arab world.

  Planned BSN cost for 2001–04 is £1.25 million.

  Catholic Priests
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations his Department has made to the Chinese Government regarding the imprisonment of Catholic priests. [99990]

  Mr. Rammell
  The cases of Catholic Bishops Su Zhimin, Jiang Shurang and Shi Enxiang were included on our list of individual cases of concern which was handed over to the Chinese authorities at the most recent UK/China Human Rights Dialogue in November 2002. We shall continue to press the Chinese for a full explanation of their arrest and their early release.

  We raise freedom of religion in general with the Chinese, both in the context of the biannual UK/China Human Rights Dialogue and at other appropriate official
  and ministerial meetings.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 16 January from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. Mohammad Arshad. [99365]

  Mr. Straw
  I did reply to my right hon. Friend's letter of 16 January, on 30 January. I am sorry however that my right hon. Friend did not for some reason receive this reply. I forwarded him a copy of that letter on 26 February, in response to this question.

  European Union
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether his Department has achieved its Public Service Agreement target to ensure increasing public support for EU activities; and if he will make a statement. [98429]

  Mr. MacShane
  The FCO's Public Service Agreement for 2001–04, agreed under the 2000 Spending Review, sets out our aim to achieve Increased support for, and better understanding of, merits of EU membership'. We work towards achieving this objective through our EU Public Diplomacy strategy. Progress can be measured through Eurobarometer, the European Commission's regular survey of pan-European public opinion.

  According to Eurobarometer, support for EU membership in the UK has increased recently. In the Eurobarometer spring 2000 survey, only 25 per cent. of those polled in the UK said that our EU membership was a 'good thing'. By the autumn of 2002, this figure had risen to 31 per cent. Eurobarometer showed that

  845W
  levels of perceived knowledge about the EU in the UK also rose between the spring 2000 and spring 2002 surveys.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he is taking to promote agreement with the Government of Spain regarding(a) better access to Gibraltar and (b) improved communications for the Territory. [100557]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Government secured through the Brussels Process talks better access from Spain to Gibraltar through the opening in March 2002 of a second customs lane at the border. It remains our view that dialogue with Spain and Gibraltar is the only way to resolve such problems.

  David Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the responsibilities of the Gibraltar Financial Services Commission in respect of regulation of financial services in Gibraltar. [100560]

  Mr. MacShane
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) on 17 December 2002,Official Report, column 761W.

  David Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received from the Government of Spain about(a) up-rating of the pension paid to Spanish pensioners who worked in Gibraltar prior to 1969, (b) payment of the household cost allowance to Spanish pensioners who worked in Gibraltar prior to 1969 and (c) reform of the household cost allowance scheme operating in Gibraltar. [100559]

  Mr. MacShane
  Her Majesty's Government have received a number of representations from the Government of Spain on these issues.

  International Criminal Court
  Tony Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what account he has taken of the scope of US federal law in deciding whether to conclude a bilateral Article 98 treaty relating to the International Criminal Court. [98386]

  Mr. Rammell
  In considering such an Agreement, we shall be guided by the Principles agreed by EU Foreign Ministers on 30 September 2002.The Principles envisage that an Agreement will include appropriate operative provisions ensuring that persons who have committed crimes falling within the jurisdiction of the ICC do not enjoy impunity. Such provisions should ensure appropriate investigation and—where there is sufficient evidence—prosecution by the US authorities of persons requested by the ICC.

  Iraq
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what information he has on the number of Iraqis killed or tortured in each year since Saddam Hussein came to power. [100059]
  846W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch) today (UIN 99526).

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received on how many estimated Iraqi civilian deaths have been directly caused by the regime of Saddam Hussein(a) prior to 1990, (b) since 1990, (c) since 1998 and (d) since November 2002; and if he will make a statement. [99526]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Precise figures are not available. But it is clear that Saddam Hussein's regime is responsible for many Iraqi civilian deaths. Amnesty International's report "Iraq: State cruelty: branding, amputation and the death penalty"—April 1996, deplores "the disappearance or extrajudicial execution of hundreds of thousands of people—including whole communities—for political reasons, and the widespread use of the death penalty for numerous criminal and political offences after unfair trials. The Iraqi Government has sanctioned mass killings and torture as a matter of policy…" The testimonies of Iraqi exiles give credence to these and other similar reports.

  John "Jackie" Elliot
  John Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to(a) the United States Federal Authorities, (b) the Texas State Authorities and (c) the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles to plead for clemency for John 'Jackie' Elliot. [92313]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Representations were made by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to the Governor of Texas, the hon. Rick Perry, and to the Chairman of the State Board of Pardons and Paroles, Gerald Garret; my noble Friend Baroness Amos also wrote to Gerald Garret; and to other Texas State officials who had a role in the decision making process of the Paroles and Pardons Board in this case. The US Federal Authorities have no direct role in the Texas parole and pardons process.

  These representations made clear HMG's opposition to the death penalty and urged that Mr. Elliott's sentence of death be commuted to a term of imprisonment. In making our representations, we sought information from key officials in Texas to ensure that we were doing all that we could to prevent the execution from taking place. We were in regular and close contact with Mr. Elliott's lawyers and were ready to make further representations as appropriate. Mr. Elliott was executed on 4 February.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Texan authorities regarding the pending execution of Mr. John 'Jackie' Elliott; and if he will make a statement. [92788]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Anniesland (John Robertson) today, UIN 92313.

  Kurdish Autonomous Region (Northern Iraq)
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) what guarantees of autonomy have been offered to the Kurdish parties in Northern Iraq after any US-led invasion has taken place; [100280]

  (2) what guarantees have been given by the Government of Turkey that they will respect the Kurdish autonomous region of Iraq following any US-led invasion. [100279]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I am not aware of any guarantees given to the Kurdish administrations in Northern Iraq by Turkey. But the UK is committed to the maintenance of Iraq's sovereignty and territorial integrity within its current borders. The only secure long-term future for the Kurds and other minority groups in Northern Iraq is as part of a stable, peaceful Iraq, which gives them a negotiated degree of autonomy.

  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions have been held with the Government of Iran concerning their approach to the Kurdish autonomous region of Northern Iraq; and if he will make a statement. [100281]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We regularly discuss Iraq policy with out Iranian counterparts. Like the UK, the Iranians tell us that Iran is committed to the maintenance of Iraq's sovereignty and territorial integrity within its current borders. The only secure long-term future for the Kurds and other minority groups in Northern Iraq is as part of a stable, peaceful Iraq, which gives them a negotiated degree of autonomy.

  Malta
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with the Government of Malta regarding their referendum on EU membership. [99737]

  Mr. MacShane
  My right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary met Dr. Fenech Adami, Prime Minister of Malta, in London on 18 February 2003. Malta's EU membership was one of the subjects discussed. The decision on Malta's EU membership is one for the Maltese people alone to make, in the referendum on 8 March.

  Mobile Phones
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) how many mobile phones have been used and at what cost by(a) himself and Ministers in his Department, (b) special advisers in his Department and (c) his departmental officials in each year since 1997; [98572]

  (2) how many mobile phones used by (a) himself, his Ministers of State and Parliamentary Under-Secretaries of State, (b) his Department's Special Advisers and (c) his departmental officials have been listed as lost or stolen in each year since 1997. [98571]
  848W
  Mr. Rammell
  Information is not held in the form requested and, particularly with regard to posts overseas, could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Publicity Campaigns
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, pursuant to his answer of 31 January 2003,Official Report, column 1089W, if he will list the publicity campaigns which account for his Department's publicity expenditure in (a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03; and if he will make a statement. [98500]

  Mr. Rammell
  Most of the expenditure listed in my answer of 31 January 2003,Official Report, column 1089W, is deployed in support of the FCO's efforts to promote greater understanding and awareness of the UK to overseas audiences, to project the UK's strengths and increase trade, inward investment, tourism and the influence of UK foreign policy. This includes expenditure on events, creative work, research and production of videos, leaflets and posters. Details of how each activity supports individual FCO objectives are not held centrally and these activities are not managed as separately identifiable publicity campaigns.

  An exception is the FCO's consular publicity campaigns, which are aimed at encouraging travellers to be better prepared before going overseas. These account for £1,141,459 in 2001–02 and £1,060,000 in 2002–03.

  Spain
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he next plans to hold meetings with the Government of Spain under the Brussels Process; and what consultation with the Government of Gibraltar will take place in advance of such meetings. [99952]

  Mr. MacShane
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 11 December 2002 to the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring),Official Report, column 380W. The Government have always wanted the Government of Gibraltar to be fully involved in discussion within the Brussels Process.

  United Nations Security Council
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the vetoes in the Security Council used on(a) 17 May 1995, (b) 30 June 2002, (c) 14 December 2001, (d) 27 March 2001, (e) 21 March 1997, (f) 7 March 1997, (g) 10 January 1997, (h) 11 May 1993 and (i) 2 December 1994. [98330]

  Mr. Rammell
  The US vetoes on 17 May 1995, 7 March 1997, 21 March 1997, 27 March 2001, 14 December 2001 were in respect of the Israel/Palestine situation.

  The US veto on 30 June 2002 was in respect of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

  The other vetoes listed were not by the US:

  The veto on 11 May 1993 was by Russia in respect of Cyprus.
  849W
  The veto on 2 December 1994 was by Russia in respect of Bosnia and Herzegovina.

  The veto on 10 January 1997 was by China in respect of Central America.

  The Government believe that the veto should be used with restraint, and in a manner consistent with the principles of the UN Charter.

PRIME MINISTER

  Iraq
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what proportion of recent letters and e-mails he has received are(a) in favour and (b) against military action against Iraq. [100039]

  The Prime Minister
  Since January, I have received over 80,000 letters and cards about the subject of Iraq. Given the volume of correspondence I receive, over one million letters in the last year covering a broad spectrum of issues, my office records the numbers of letters received on a subject rather than by the view expressed. However, I know that many people have written to me expressing concerns about the action against Iraq and I reiterate what I have said that no decision has been made to take military action and military action is not inevitable. My office works hard to ensure that all the letters receive appropriate responses.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Prime Minister what the procedure was for approving and publishing the dossier entitled Iraq—Its Infrastructure of Concealment, Deception and Intimidation; and which Minister had ultimate responsibility for its contents. [100285]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Smith) on 10 February 2003,Official Report, column 583W and Prime Minister's Questions on 12 February 2003.

  Oil Contracts
  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Prime Minister, pursuant to his statement to the House of 25 February 2003,Official Report, columns 123–140W, what contingency plans he has in place relating to the honouring of current oil contracts between Iraq and France and Russia. [99968]
  850W
  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 28 February 2003]: Contracts for the export of Iraqi oil under the Oil for Food programme continue to be honoured, with Iraq exporting 11.9 million barrels in the week beginning 15 February. Our policy is that the sanctions regime should be complied with.

  United Nations Security Council
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the leaders of other members of the United Nations Security Council with whom he has had contact since 1 February 2003 broken down by date and purpose of communication. [100075]

  The Prime Minister
  I am in regular contact with other world leaders, including heads of state and government of other members of the UN Security Council, on a wide range of international issues.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Services
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when the databases inherited by CAFCASS on 1 April 2001 will no longer be required. [99544]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The databases inherited by CAFCASS from its predecessors will no longer be required when CAFCASS has alternative service-wide systems in place. User consultation has taken place and CAFCASS is currently examining its options for the most appropriate IT solution to its organisational requirements.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how long it takes to make a file on a CAFCASS client available on request, and at what cost. [99545]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  CAFCASS clients have access to documents in accordance with the provisions of the Data Protection Act (DPA) 1998 and associated rules and regulations, including those governing court proceedings. CAFCASS applies the standard DPA provisions to the timescale for the release of information—aiming to complete all requests within 40 days. Relevant documents are made available on payment of a fee of £10.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Sure Start
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much has been spent on Sure Start projects in each of the last five years. [96108]

  Maria Eagle
  The annual spending on Sure Start for the last five financial years is shown in the following table.

  £ million

  1997–98

  n/a

  1998–99

  n/a

  1999–2000

  5

  2000–01

  56

  2001–02

  134

  Class Sizes
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) five, (b) six and (c) sevenyear-old children in Nottingham, North were taught in class sizes of 30 or more (i) in 1997 and (ii) in the latest period for which figures are available. [98327]

  Maria Eagle
  Information on the age of pupils within classes is not collected centrally.

  The available information on the number of pupils in designated nursery classes and other classes of 31 or more in maintained primary schools in Nottingham, North parliamentary constituency is shown in the table.

  Maintained primary schools1: number of classes of 31 or more and the number pupils within them2 Nottingham, North parliamentary constituency

  Taught by one teacher

  Nursery classes

  Other classes

  Position as at January each year

  Number of pupils

  Number of classes

  Number of pupils

  Number of classes

  1997

  563

  14

  3,502

  107

  1998

  529

  13

  3,052

  93

  1999

  617

  16

  2,633

  79

  2000

  527

  13

  2,388

  72

  2001

  493

  12

  1,763

  53

  2002

  524

  13

  1,443

  44

  1Excludes middle schools as deemed.

  2 Classes as taught during the one selected period in each school on the day of the census.

  Source:

  Annual Schools' Census

  Demountable Classrooms
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many demountable classrooms there were at primary schools in the Colchester constituency in May 1997; how many there are; and how many have been replaced with permanent accommodation since May 1997. [99654]

  Mr. Miliband
  As part of the data collected through the appraisal of sset management plans, the Department for Education and Skills has some information on the overall area of temporary accommodation at schools, but it is not possible from these data to identify with any 852W
  precision the actual number of temporary classrooms. The Department does not hold information on numbers of replacement temporary classrooms.

  Departmental Phone Directories
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when the most recent internal phone directory for the Department was published; how often it is updated; and if he will place a copy in the Library. [100092]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The Department's internal directory is held electronically and updated constantly. We are discontinuing printed versions but will, however, provide the House Library with a CD-Rom version and update that quarterly.

  Education Fees (Contribution)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of students in each local education authority(a) contributed and (b) partly contributed to fees in (i) 1999–2000, (ii) 2000–01 and (iii) 2001–02; and what his estimate is for the current academic year. [99141]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 25 February 2003]In England and Wales students on full-time undergraduate courses and their families are expected to make a contribution towards the cost of their tuition only if they can afford to do so.

  The percentage of students in England and Wales in academic years 1999–2000 and 2000–01 (latest year for which data are available) who have been assessed to make a full or partial contribution towards the cost of their tuition is shown in the table:

  All students (percentage)1

  Academic Year

  1999–2000

  2000–012

  Partial contribution towards the cost of tuition from student/parents/spouse/partner

  20

  19

  Full contribution towards the cost of tuition from student/parents/spouse/partner

  35

  39

  1 Contributions towards the cost of tuition are assessed by local education authorities in England and Wales for students normally domiciled in their area and studying in the UK.

  2 2000–01 data are provisional.

  Source:

  F503G survey of local education authorities

  National level data are published annually in the Department's Statistical First Releases (SFRs) (SFR 18/2001 and SFR 08/2002 for 1999–2000 and 2000–01 respectively). Data are collected from the local education authorities (LEAs) to produce national estimates and the data collection exercise does not allow the production of firm figures at the individual LEA level. National data for academic year 2001–02 will be available at the end of April 2003 and that for the current year 2002–03 will be published in spring 2004.

  Education Funding
  Angela Watkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average Education Funding Spending Share per(a) primary pupil and

  853W
  (b) secondary pupil is in London; and which London borough will receive the lowest EFSS per pupil in 2003–04. [100221]

  Mr. Miliband
  In London, the average education formula spending share per primary pupil in 2003–04 is £2,733 and per secondary pupil is £3,470.

  Havering has the lowest EFSS per pupil in London. The main reason for this is that Havering benefits less overall than other London authorities from the top-ups in the funding formula to reflect the additional costs of educating deprived pupils, and the additional costs of recruiting and retaining staff in high-cost areas.

  That is because, in London, only Richmond upon Thames has a lower proportion of deprived pupils than Havering. But Richmond upon Thames benefits more from the factor in the formula for area costs. The area cost adjustment for outer London authorities is split into east and west: wages in west London are generally higher than in east London so the ACA for west London is higher. Richmond upon Thames receives the (higher) ACA for outer London authorities in the west, and Havering receives the (lower) ACA for those in the east. The net effect is that Havering has a lower EFSS per pupil than Richmond upon Thames, and other London authorities.

  Higher Education
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what evidence his Department assessed on the deterrent effect of debt on potential students from lower socio-economic groups when drawing up the proposals in the policy document, The Future of Higher Education; and if he will make a statement. [98131]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Department considered a range of evidence including its own commissioned research into "Social Class and HE: Issues Affecting Decisions on Participation by Lower Social Class Groups" (published 2001), the HE extension of the Youth Cohort Study (still in progress) and preliminary results from its evaluation of the Excellence Challenge. The findings suggest that concern about debt is only one of the inhibitors on HE participation. Cultural, social and institutional influences and educational background are also important. The right kind of information is vital. Recent departmental research suggests also that the most common cause of non-completion of HE courses is poor choice of course rather than financial problems associated with participation.

  In the light of this evidence we are introducing the measures set out in the White Paper, The Future of Higher Education, notably means tested higher education grants of up to £1,000 per year and raising the loan repayment threshold from £10,000 to £15,000 from April 2005, but also the abolition of upfront tuition fees which were perceived as inhibiting access. In addition we are committed to improving our promotion, marketing and outreach to convince those from low income backgrounds that HE really is for them. We must also continue with our school reforms, particularly now at secondary level, to increase the number of young people with the right qualifications to benefit from higher education.
  854W
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the average amount of Government support towards living costs per student for each university and higher education institution in each year since 1980. [94708]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information requested is not available in the format requested. However, information on average maintenance grant per student is available nationally for England and Wales and is shown in the table.

  Average maintenance grant in England and Wales1

  £

  Cash terms

  In real terms 2000–012

  Academic Year

  Student support scheme students3,4

  Mandatory award scheme students4,5

  Student support scheme students3,4

  Mandatory award scheme students4,5

  2000–06

  150

  1,130

  150

  1,130

  1999–20006

  130

  1,150

  130

  1,180

  1998–996

  690

  1,200

  720

  1,250

  1997–986

  7—

  1,210

  7—

  1,300

  1996–976

  7—

  1,240

  7—

  1,360

  1995–966

  7—

  1,390

  7—

  1,580

  1994–956

  7—

  1,520

  7—

  1,780

  1993–946

  7—

  1,670

  7—

  1,980

  1992–936

  7—

  1,610

  7—

  1,980

  1991–926,8

  7—

  1,550

  7—

  1,980

  1990–916

  7—

  1,480

  7—

  2,000

  1989–90

  7—

  1,390

  7—

  2,050

  1988–89

  7—

  1,320

  7—

  2,060

  1987–88

  7—

  1,240

  7—

  2,050

  1986–87

  7—

  1,220

  7—

  2,070

  1985–86

  7—

  1,170

  7—

  2,070

  1984–859

  7—

  1,240

  7—

  2,310

  1983–849

  7—

  1,310

  7—

  2,530

  1982–839

  7—

  1,270

  7—

  2,590

  1981–829

  7—

  1,250

  7—

  2,730

  1980–819

  7—

  1,190

  7—

  2,910

  1 Payable to students normally domiciled in LEAs in England and Wales.

  2 Expenditure shown in 2000–01 prices based on the RPI (excluding mortgage interest payments) of September each academic year.

  3 Students starting their course in 1998–99, 1999–2000 and 2000–01 under the student support scheme funding.

  4 Average maintenance figures have been rounded to the nearest £10.

  5 Students who entered higher education up to 1997–98 and those who entered in 1998–99 to whom the mandatory scheme funding arrangements still applied.

  6 Student loans were introduced when student support arrangements were changed in 1990–91 to supplement maintenance grants which were frozen at their level in that year. Data in this table exclude student loans and relate to maintenance grants only.

  7 Not applicable

  8 Includes an estimated 8.600 students and £17.5 million maintenance expenditure in respect of the London Residual Body.

  9 Up until academic year 1984–85 all eligible mandatory scheme students were entitled to receive a minimum cash grant (£205 in 1984–85; £410 in 1981–82 to 1983–84; and £385 in 1980–81).

  Source:

  F503G Survey of local education authorities on student support funding.

  Additionally, loan support has been available to eligible students normally domiciled in the United Kingdom since 1990–91 and information on the average amount of student loan is given in the table. However, because the rules for eligibility between maintenance grants and loans differ, and because the average

  855W
  maintenance data refer to students domiciled in England and Wales, whereas the average loans data refer to students domiciled in the United Kingdom, the two sets of data should not be added together.

  Student support provision—average loan: United Kingdom—academic years 1990–91 to 2001–021

  £

  Average loan (United Kingdom)2,3,4

  Cash terms

  In real terms 2001–025

  Academic year6

  Student support scheme students

  Mandatory award scheme Students

  student support scheme students

  Mandatory award scheme students

  2001–021

  3,120

  1,500

  73,120

  1,500

  2000–01

  3,100

  1,450

  3,170

  1,480

  1999–2000

  3,150

  1,470

  3,290

  1,540

  1998–99

  2,580

  1,520

  2,760

  1,620

  1997–98

  8—

  1,530

  8—

  1,680

  1996–97

  8—

  1,490

  8—

  1,680

  1995–96

  8—

  1,250

  8—

  1,450

  1994–95

  8—

  1,040

  8—

  1,240

  1993–94

  8—

  740

  8—

  900

  1992–93

  8—

  660

  8—

  830

  1991–92

  8—

  530

  8—

  690

  1990–91

  8—

  390

  8—

  540

  12001–02 data are provisional.

  2 Student loans are available to eligible students normally domiciled in the United Kingdom.

  3 Student loans are available to students on full-time undergraduate HE courses (and students on full-time and part-time postgraduate courses of initial teacher training). From 1999–2000, students aged between 50 to 54 at the start of their course (this includes students who started their course after September 1998) can apply for a student loan as long as they can demonstrate to their awarding authority that they plan to return to employment after finishing their course.

  4 Average figures have been rounded to the nearest £10.

  5 Expenditure shown in 2001–02 prices based on the RPI (excluding mortgage interest payments of September each academic year).

  6 The time series of this table is different to that shown for average maintenance because student loans were not introduced until 1990–91, and provisional data are available for 2001–02

  7 The drop in the average loan is explained by final year students of a three year course entering the figures for the first time; these students are eligible for a lower rate of loan.

  8 Not applicable

  Source

  The Student Loans Company

  Industrial Action/Illness
  Mr. Roger Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many working days were lost due to(a) industrial action and (b) illness in his Department in each year since 1997. [95899]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The overall sickness absence rate in the Department for Education and Skills for 2001 was 8.4 days per staff year.

  The overall sickness absence rate in the former Department for Education and Employment for each of the years from 2000 to 1997 was:

  Days per staff year

  2000

  11.3

  1999

  11.0

  1998

  11.6

  1997

  12.6

  856W
  The figures are taken from the report "Analysis of Sickness Absence in the Civil Service", published annually by Cabinet Office. The figures for 2002 will be announced in due course.

  My Department is committed to managing sickness absence effectively and to maintain its efforts to try and meet the 2003 target for reduced sickness absence as set out in its Service Delivery Agreement.

  Information on the number of working days lost due to industrial action could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. My Department recognises the importance of and maintains its commitment to working in partnership with the trade union side as a means of eliminating industrial action.

  Internal Directorate
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the allocated funding is for each internal directorate of his Department in(a) 2003–04, (b) 2004–05 and (c) 2005–06, (i) in cash terms and (ii) on a full resource budgeting basis. [96281]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Details of the administrative budgets allocated to internal directorates in my Department for 2003–04 are set out in the table. Firm internal allocations have not been agreed for the forward years. The figures are on a resource accounting basis, budgets are no longer allocated on a cash basis.

  £000

  Directorate

  2003–04

  Youth

  13,824

  Corporate services and development

  89,859

  Schools

  43,874

  Finance and analytical services

  20,029

  Strategy and communications

  10,100

  Lifelong learning

  26,867

  Legal adviser's office

  3,300

  Non-cash costs previously charged to annually managed expenditure are included within corporate services and development directorate's allocation. Similarly, the costs of the Department's estates, information systems and human resource services are not devolved and are included in the allocation for corporate services and development directorate.

  List 99 Database
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how often the List 99 database is updated and maintained; and what checks are in place to ensure information is accurate. [100146]

  Mr. Miliband
  List 99 is updated every time my Department issues a direction, barring or restricting a person from employment in the education service, or removing or varying a bar or restriction on a person's employment. It is also updated when we receive notification that a person on the list has died. The information shown on List 99—a person's name, date of
  birth, teacher reference number (if appropriate) and National Insurance Number—is provided by the police and the person's employer.

  Modern Languages
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many students achieved A grades in modern languages at(a) GCSE and (b) 'A' level in each year since 1995; and if he will make a statement. [99625]

  Mr. Miliband
  The number of students who achieved A grades in Modern Languages at GCSE and A level in each year since 1995 are:

  GCSE1

  A level

  French

  German

  Spanish

  French

  German

  Spanish

  2002

  52,751

  22,121

  10,542

  —

  —

  —

  2001

  53,692

  22,931

  10,378

  3,745

  2,177

  1,202

  2000

  53,331

  23,503

  9,439

  3,519

  2,079

  1,068

  1999

  53,580

  23,367

  8,381

  3,789

  2,008

  992

  1998

  52,383

  23,764

  7,852

  3,969

  2,042

  1,049

  1997

  54,811

  25,904

  8,081

  3,986

  1,866

  945

  1996

  56,672

  24,965

  7,405

  4,351

  1,897

  844

  1995

  54,896

  23,788

  6,262

  4,190

  1,712

  689

  1GCSE figures include A∗ grades

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many modern languages teachers qualified in each year since 1995; and if he will make a statement. [99626]

  Mr. Miliband
  The following table gives the numbers qualifying as teachers in England1 with a modern language as their subject.

  Calendar year of qualification2

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  1,590

  1,590

  1,510

  1,520

  1,410

  1,260

  1,390

  1 Includes those trained through the Open University but excludes those qualifying through employment based routes.

  2 The data for 1995 to 2000 are from the DfES Database of Teachers' Records (DTR). The 2001 figure is taken from the Teacher Training Agency's (TTA) Performance Profiles because 2001 DTR data are not available. The TTA figure is comparable to the DTR data.

  Nursery Education
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) three and (b) four-year-old children in Nottingham, North attended nursery (i) in 1997 and (ii) in the most recent period for which figures are available. [98328]

  Maria Eagle
  The information is not available in the form requested.

  The available information on the numbers of free early education places taken up by three and four-year-olds in Nottingham City local education authority for 1997 and 2002 are shown in the table.

  Numbers of free early education places taken up by three and four-year-olds, Nottingham City local education authority area 1997 and 2002

  Position in January each year

  1997

  2002

  3-year-olds

  Maintained nursery and primary schools1,2

  1,800

  —

  Other maintained and private, voluntary and independent providers3

  n/a

  —

  4-year-olds

  3,900

  —

  Total

  5,700

  —

  858W

  Numbers of free early education places taken up by three and four-year-olds, Nottingham City local education authority area 1997 and 2002

  Position in January each year

  1997

  2002

  3-year-olds

  Maintained nursery and primary schools1

  —

  2,400

  Other maintained and private, voluntary and independent providers3

  —

  690

  4-year-olds

  —

  Maintained nursery and primary schools4

  —

  3,000

  Other maintained and private, voluntary and independent providers5

  —

  430

  Total 4-year-olds6

  —

  3,430

  Total

  —

  6,520

  n/a = not available

  1Headcount of children aged three at 31 December in the previous calendar year from the Annual Schools Census

  2 Summer term 1997.

  3 Part-time equivalent number of children aged three at 31 December in the previous calendar year from the Nursery Education Grant data collection exercise. Nursery Education Grant for three-year-olds was allocated to the 65 LEAs in 1999–2000 and all LEAs from 2000–2001.

  4Headcount of children aged four at 31 December in the previous calendar year from the Annual Schools Census.

  5 Part-time equivalent number of children aged four at 31 December in the previous calendar year from the Nursery Education grant data collection exercise.

  6 The total 4-year-old figure for 2002 combines two sources of information, the Annual Schools' Census and Nursery Education Grant data. In previous years, only Nursery Education Grant data was used.

  Latest figures on three and four-year-olds in early years education providers were published by the Department in the Statistical Bulletin "Provision for Children Under Five Years of Age in England—January 2002 (08/2002)" in December 2002, a copy of which is available from the Library. An electronic copy of this publication is also available on the Department's website (www.dfes.gov.uk/statistics).

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many nursery places in England and Wales there were for children(a) under three years and (b) from three years to compulsory school age for each year since 1997. [96802]

  Mr. Miliband
  The available information on the number of free early years educatquoteion places taken up by three and four-year-olds in each year since 1997 is shown in Table 1.

  Table 1: Number1,2 of 3 and 4-year-olds taking up free early years education places England 1997–2002

  Position in January each year

  3-year-olds

  4-year-olds

  Total

  1997

  214,200

  576,200

  790,300

  1998

  222,000

  591,500

  813,500

  1999

  225,700

  593,800

  819,500

  2000

  270,200

  598,500

  868,600

  2001

  335,400

  589,300

  924,700

  2002

  408,200

  584,500

  992,800

  1 Rounded to the nearest hundred.

  2 Sum over 3 and 4-year-olds may not equal total because of rounding.

  All four-year-olds have been able to access a free, part-time early education place since September 1998. Since September 1999, we have invested substantially in

  859W
  new free early years education places for three-year-olds. The table shows that the number of free early years education places taken up by three-year-olds increased from 214,200 in 1997 to 408,200 in 2002, an increase of 194,000 places. We are committed to providing all three year-olds, whose parents want one, with free early years education places by April 2004.

  The latest figures on provision for three and four-year-olds were published in Statistical Bulletin 09/2002 "Provision For Children Under Five Years Of Age in England-January 2002", which is available from the Library or the Department's website www.dfes.gov.uk/ statistics/.

  Information for Wales is a matter for the Education Department of the Assembly for Wales.

  School Buildings
  Mr. Mike Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much money the Government has spent on the replacement of old and worn-out school buildings in(a) England and (b) the Portsmouth area in the last 12 months; and if he will make a statement. [100104]

  Mr. Miliband
  Government support for capital investment in school buildings in England for 2002–03 is £3 billion; for Portsmouth the figure is £4.25 million. We do not collect information on the split between new buildings and renovation. Looking to the future, I announced on 26 February proposals for a new approach to capital investment in a paper, "Building schools for the future". This will be a programme of rebuilding and renewal to ensure that secondary education in every part of England has facilities of 21st Century standard within 10 to 15 years from 2005–06, subject to future public spending decisions. We will also aim to provide substantial investment in primary school buildings.

  School Circulars
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the circulars that have been sent by the Learning and Skills Council to(a) secondary schools and (b) colleges of further education since 1 March 2002; and how many pages each circular contained. [99486]

  Mr. Miliband
  This is a matter for the Learning and Skills Council. John Harwood, the Council's Chief Executive, will write to the hon. Member with the information requested and a copy of his reply will be placed in the Libraries.

  Student Grants (Portsmouth, South)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate he has made of the number of students in Portsmouth, South eligible to claim grants for university in each of the next three years; and if he will make a statement. [98096]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  My Department does not make forecasts for the number of students likely to be claiming grants for university in each local education authority (LEA) or parliamentary constituency.

  Student Grants
  Mr Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will estimate the cost of providing students with family incomes of(a) £15,000, (b) £20,000 and (c) £30,000 with student grants of (i) £1,000, (ii) £2,000 and (iii) £3,000. [94754]

  Margaret Hodge
  The information requested is currently not available. I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to the hon. Member for Birmingham Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) on 6 February,Official Report, column 357W.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Affordable Housing
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether the London Housing Board will be able to fund the construction of new affordable housing in the east, south east and south west regions for use as part of the Seaside and Country Homes Scheme. [99170]

  Mr. McNulty
  It will remain open to authorities in London, and elsewhere, to support the provision of additional affordable housing in other regions if this is a cost-effective way of addressing their housing needs but only where it has the support of the authority in which the housing is to be provided. The establishment of regional housing boards will allow a more strategic view to be taken about the extent to which needs can be met by provision of housing outside the region.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many units of affordable housing(a) for rent and (b) for sale were built from funding generated by recycled capital grant in each year since 1997. [99174]

  Mr. McNulty
  The option for Registered Social Landlords to recycle social housing grant was introduced in April 1997. The number of dwellings completed by RSLs which have been funded, wholly or in conjunction with loans or RSL reserves, from recycled capital grant fund since 1997 are tabled below.

  Sale

  Rent

  1997–98

  1

  0

  1998–99

  100

  87

  1999–2000

  85

  271

  2000–01

  502

  646

  2001–02

  1218

  361

  1Figures for 2001–02 subject to validation

  In addition, RSLs have built affordable housing units by combining recycled grant with social housing grant from local authorities or the Housing Corporation. These units are not included in the above figures. RSLs can also use recycled grant for major repair and improvement of their existing housing.

  Disconnections
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many households there are where(a) gas, (b) electricity and (c) water utilities are disconnected. [98971]
  861W
  Mr. Wilson
  I have been asked to reply.

  Information on the number of households disconnected at any one time is not available. During 2002, 22,335 gas and 3,334 electricity customers were disconnected for debt or theft.

  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has responsibility for the water industry. I understand that under the Water Industry Act 1999, water companies do not have the power to disconnect various categories of premises, including private dwellings.

  Gypsies and Travellers
  Mr. David Atkinson
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he will issue joint guidance with the Home Department on managing unauthorised camping by gypsies and other travellers; and if he will make a statement. [99494]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister in conjunction with the Home Office, will issue new joint guidance on managing unauthorised camping by gypsies and other travellers by the summer.

  The joint guide will form two documents, "Framework Guidance", which is a set of general principles, and detailed "Operational Guidance" for use mainly by local authorities and police services.

  Homebuy Loans
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many homebuy loans were made in each local authority in London in each year since the scheme's introduction. [99172]

  Mr. McNulty
  Tabled as follows is the breakdown of homebuy loans that have been made in each local authority area in London since the scheme was first introduced on 1 April 1999.

  Loans

  Sponsoring authority

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–031

  Barking and Dagenham

  6

  18

  15

  2

  Barnet

  12

  20

  18

  8

  Bexley

  0

  0

  5

  8

  Brent

  21

  34

  29

  28

  Bromley

  8

  21

  16

  14

  Camden

  9

  12

  17

  12

  Croydon

  15

  17

  15

  10

  Ealing

  9

  32

  18

  6

  Enfield

  8

  18

  11

  11

  Greenwich

  0

  19

  29

  16

  Hackney

  19

  39

  17

  32

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  27

  31

  17

  15

  Haringey

  19

  32

  26

  22

  Harrow

  4

  11

  8

  2

  Havering

  0

  7

  10

  7

  Hillingdon

  7

  25

  16

  5

  Hounslow

  11

  27

  10

  6

  Islington

  14

  13

  13

  9

  Kensington and Chelsea

  14

  5

  0

  0

  Kingston upon Thames

  6

  3

  6

  5

  Lambeth

  20

  16

  17

  17

  Lewisham

  22

  23

  13

  19

  Merton

  6

  8

  13

  4

  Newham

  57

  42

  0

  8

  Redbridge

  0

  9

  0

  17

  Richmond upon Thames

  10

  6

  6

  1

  Southwark

  19

  19

  15

  22

  Button

  1

  7

  8

  2

  Tower Hamlets

  32

  17

  21

  6

  862W

  Loans

  Sponsoring authority

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–031

  Waltham Forest

  17

  23

  11

  9

  Wandsworth

  33

  59

  50

  6

  Westminster

  31

  36

  33

  15

  City of London

  1

  2

  5

  8

  1To 31 January

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many homebuy loans were made to(a) those in social housing, (b) those on housing waiting/transfer lists and (c) key workers in London in each year since the scheme's introduction. [99173]

  Mr. McNulty
  A total of 2,529 people were helped into home ownership using the homebuy scheme during the first three years of its operation. The following table shows the breakdown between those from rented properties and those from the waiting list where available.

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  On the waiting list

  177

  343

  346

  In social housing

  355

  569

  519

  Not available

  394

  584

  449

  Total

  926

  1,496

  1,314

  To be eligible for a homebuy loan, a potential purchaser must either be currently in social housing, or be on the housing waiting list and be recommended by the local authority as being in housing need.

  Information on the number of homebuy loans made to key workers is not collected. The starter home initiative is helping key workers into home ownership through equity loans based on the homebuy model and shared ownership schemes. To the end of January 2003 around 1,000 key workers in London had purchased homes with Starter Home Initiative assistance.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of introducing(a) low tranche (below 25 per cent.) shared ownership schemes and (b) lower tranche (below 75 per cent.) homebuy schemes. [99176]

  Mr. McNulty
  As announced by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister on 5 February and published in "Sustainable Communities: building for the future", the Housing Corporation has agreed to lead a task force which will look at existing programmes that support sustainable home ownership. This will include both the shared ownership and homebuy schemes. The task force will examine the scope for better targeting and design of the current home ownership initiatives to ensure they are cost effective and that the home ownership is sustainable.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the correlation between the indicators of deprivation used by his Department to distribute local authority finance and actual levels of homelessness in each authority. [99733]
  863W
  Mr. Raynsford
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and local authority groups considered a range of indicators to reflect the costs of providing services to homeless people during the recent review of the Environmental, Protective and Cultural Services block formula. These costs vary significantly around the country and it is clear that they are related to the balance between demand and the supply of available housing in each area. However no workable formula to measure this balance or otherwise model homelessness expenditure was found. The EPCS formula has also to take account of a substantial number of other important services.

  The new EPCS formula contains deprivation indicators that reflect the additional costs of provision across the full range of EPCS services.

  Housing
  Matthew Green
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many properties have been compulsorily purchased by(a) housing action trusts, (b) English Partnerships, (c) regional development agencies and (d) the Housing Corporation in each year since 1999. [99401]

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

  Housing Affordability
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will publish(a) the house price and (b) income data underlying the south east: Housing Affordability 2001 map in his document "Sustainable Communities in the South East"; if he will provide a breakdown of income data for each district or unitary authority; and what the ratio of lower quartile house prices to lower quartile income is in each local authority area in the South East. [99309]

  Mr. McNulty
  Tabled below are the lower quartile house prices for local authorities in the South East, the regional lower quartile earnings and the equivalent house price to earningsratios that were used to produce the South East; Housing Affordability 2001 map in the recent document entitled "Sustainable Communities in the south east"1

  The derivation of the house price to earnings ratios that formed the basis of the map entitled "South East: Housing Affordability 2001"2 and published by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister in "Sustainable communities in the South East"

  Local Authority

  Lower quartile houseprice (£)

  Lower quartile earnings per person by region (£)

  Ratio of house price to earnings

  Adur

  89,950

  14794

  6.08

  Arun

  80,000

  14794

  5.41

  Ashford

  81,000

  14794

  5.48

  Aylesbury Vale

  93,000

  14794

  6.29

  Basingstoke and Deane

  99,950

  14794

  6.76

  Bracknell Forest

  114,000

  14794

  7.71

  Brighton

  89,950

  14794

  6.08

  Canterbury

  82,000

  14794

  5.54

  Cherwell

  89,950

  14794

  6.08

  Chichester

  105,000

  14794

  7.10

  Chiltern

  142,500

  14794

  9.63

  Portsmouth

  67,000

  14794

  4.53

  Southampron

  67,000

  14794

  4.73

  Crawley

  88,500

  14794

  5.98

  Dartford

  75,000

  14794

  5.07

  East Hampshire

  107,500

  14794

  7.27

  Eastbourne

  70,000

  14,794

  4.73

  864W

  The derivation of the house price to earnings ratios that formed the basis of the map entitled "South East: Housing Affordability 2001"2 and published by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister in "Sustainable communities in the South East"

  Local Authority

  Lower quartile houseprice (£)

  Lower quartile earnings per person by region (£)

  Ratio of house price to earnings

  Eastleigh

  91,000

  14,794

  6.15

  Elmbridge

  155,000

  14,794

  10.48

  Epsom and Ewell

  135,000

  14,794

  9.13

  Fareham

  93,000

  14,794

  6.29

  Gosport

  65,303

  14,794

  4.41

  Gravesham

  76,000

  14,794

  5.14

  Guildford

  128,000

  14,794

  8.65

  Hart

  128,000

  14,794

  8.65

  Hastings

  45,950

  14,794

  3.11

  Havant

  76,094

  14,794

  5.14

  Horsham

  112,500

  14,794

  7.60

  Isle of Wight

  65,000

  14,794

  4.39

  Lewes

  89,000

  14,794

  6.02

  Maidstone

  87,000

  14,794

  5.88

  Medway

  62,000

  14,794

  4.19

  Mid Sussex

  112,000

  14,794

  7.57

  Milton Keynes

  73,500

  14,794

  4.97

  Mole Valley

  140,125

  14,794

  9.47

  New Forest

  94,500

  14,794

  6.39

  Oxford

  125,000

  14,794

  8.45

  Reading

  102,950

  14,794

  6.96

  Reigate and Banstead

  120,000

  14,794

  8.11

  Rother

  75,000

  14,794

  5.07

  Runnymede

  126,000

  14,794

  8.52

  Rushmoor

  96,000

  14,794

  6.49

  Sevenoaks

  118,000

  14,794

  7.98

  Shepway

  63,000

  14,794

  4.26

  Slough

  88,000

  14,794

  5.95

  South Bucks

  150,000

  14,794

  10.14

  South Oxfordshire

  112,000

  14.794

  7.57

  Spelthorne

  120,000

  14,794

  8.11

  Surrey Heath

  130,000

  14,794

  8.79

  Swale

  64,984

  14,794

  4.39

  Tandridge

  124,950

  14,794

  8.45

  Test Valley

  99,950

  14,794

  6.76

  Thanet

  58,950

  14,794

  3.98

  Tonbridge and Mailing

  96,950

  14,794

  6.55

  Tunbridge Wells

  99,000

  14,794

  6.69

  Vale of the White Horse

  112,000

  14,794

  7.57

  Waverley

  132,500

  14,794

  8.96

  Wealden

  91,000

  14,794

  6.15

  West Berkshire

  115,000

  14,794

  7.77

  West Oxfordshire

  110,000

  14,794

  7.44

  Winchester

  123,000

  14,794

  8.31

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  150,000

  14,794

  10.14

  Woking

  121,000

  14,794

  8.18

  Wokingham

  137,000

  14,794

  9.26

  Worthing

  74,659

  14,794

  5.05

  Wycombe

  115,000

  14,794

  7.77

  1House price data: Land Registry

  2 Earnings data: Office for National Statistics: New Earnings Survey, 2001 (based on adults working full-time)

  Whilst the above data was used as a basis for the published map, more recent information on estimated earnings by local authority is now available and may be published in the near future.

  However, in the context of measuring affordability of housing in each local authority no decision has yet been made on the most appropriate combination of house price and income indicators. For instance, it may be decided to continue using regional incomes rather than local authority incomes.

  Islington
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what action is being taken by his Department to ensure improvements in the performance of the London borough of Islington. [100518]

  Mr. Raynsford
  A process of support and assistance is now in place to aid recovery in Islington council. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has appointed a lead official, who is working closely with the council's
  865W
  elected members and officers to establish what needs to be done to bring about rapid improvement in Islington. The official will help Islington council, other Government Departments and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister to work together in a co-ordinated and supportive manner to address Islington's key priorities and deliver the quality of services the people of Islington rightly deserve.

  Local Government
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many different plans concerning local authority functions each tier of local government has been required to submit to central Government in each year since 1997. [98407]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The number of plans required to be submitted in each year to central Government is in the following table. These figures include plans which are required from partnerships which include local authorities as well as those plans that are required from only particular authorities. The table reflects the best available information.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister recently announced a significant reduction in the number of plans that will be required from all authorities. The very best authorities will have only to prepare two plans, neither of which will be submitted to Government.

  Year

  Unitary

  Tier District

  County

  1997–98

  5

  2

  4

  1998–99

  11

  3

  10

  1999–2000

  18

  3

  17

  2000–01

  22

  5

  21

  2001–02

  31

  9

  28

  2002–03

  33

  7

  31

  2003–041

  22

  5

  20

  1Estimate

  Pathfinder Report
  Mr. Michael Weir
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to publish in full the Fire Cover Task Group's Pathfinder report. [100119]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend, the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak, Lynne Jones on 7 January 2003,Official Report, column 115W.

  Recycled Capital Grant
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to require the Housing Corporation to promote greater transparency about the amount and uses of recycled capital grant. [99175]

  Mr. McNulty
  Registered social landlords (RSLs) are required, by the Housing Corporation, to present accumulated recycled capital grant in their annual accounts. RSLs are expected to consult with the local authorities from whose area grant has been recycled about the use of the recycled capital grant fund (RCGF).
  866W
  Information on the permitted uses of RCGF is available on the Housing Corporation's website (www.housingcorp.gov.uk). In brief, RSLs may use RCGF for projects that would qualify for new social housing grant. These projects are subject to the same grant rates, cost limits and rents as new grant projects.

  Regional Housing Boards
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) when each of the new Regional Housing Boards will first meet; and how often they will be expected to meet each year; [99167]

  (2) what plans he has to issue further guidance to the new Regional Housing Boards (a) collectively and (b) individually; [99169]

  (3) which organisations and individuals have been invited to sit on each of the new Regional Housing Boards; [99166]

  (4) what the arrangements will be for the new Regional Housing Boards to consult with interested parties. [99168]

  Mr. McNulty
  Government and Housing Corporation Regional Offices, the Regional Assembly, the Regional Development Agency and English Partnership will be represented on the Regional Housing Board. Further membership of the board, the timing and frequency of its meetings and the arrangements for consulting with other interested parties are a matter for agreement within the region. The composition of the board is still being finalised in some regions. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister expects to work closely with Regional Housing Boards in the coming months to ensure the new arrangements are implemented successfully.

  Seaside and Country Homes Scheme
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister which registered social landlords participate in the seaside and country homes scheme. [99162]

  Mr. McNulty
  There are eight registered social landlords who hold seaside and country homes. These are North British Housing, Anchor Trust, Bristol Churches, Devon and Cornwall, Gloucestershire, Knightstone, Longhurst and Nene Housing Society.

  All London registered social landlords can nominate tenants for the scheme. In the year from April 2001 until March 2002 the following RSLs had tenants either interviewed for the scheme and/or rehoused (some of the rehousings were from previous years): Bethnal Green and Victoria Park HA, Bradford Property Trust, Bromley/Broomleigh HA, Church Commissioners, Circles 33 Housing Trust, Community HA, East Thames HA, English Churches HA, Family HA, Guinness Trust, Hexagon HA, Hyde HA, Islington and Shoreditch HA, London and Quadrant, Metropolitan Housing Trust, Network HA, New Islington and Hackney HA, Octavia HA, Orbit HA, Peabody Trust, Poplar Harca, Richmond Churches, Samuel Lewis Trust, Sanctuary HA, Soldiers and Sailors Foundation, South London Family HA, Springboard HA, St Pancras HA, Threshold Tennant HA, Toynbee HA and Warden HA.
  867W
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister which local authorities place restrictions on the numbers of tenants they will nominate to the Seaside and Country Homes Scheme each year.[99163]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is not aware of any local authorities that have placed restrictions on the number of their tenants who meet the eligibility criteria that can apply.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what guidance his Department has issued to local authorities about establishing the relative priority of tenants they nominate to the Seaside and Country Homes Scheme. [99164]

  Mr. McNulty
  The last guidance on the scheme was issued to all London Boroughs by HOMES in 2000. This included as an annex the application form that explains how points are awarded.

  HOMES also send all boroughs a quarterly report which gives details of areas with lower demand and also ensure that London Borough staff who take over responsibility for the scheme are trained in how it operates. Front line staff are encouraged to attend these sessions so as to ensure they are familiar with the scheme's operation.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what figures his Department has collated on the number of tenants whose application to be considered for the Seaside and Country Homes Scheme has been refused by their local authority on the grounds of(a) their eligibility and (b) their relative priority. [99165]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has not collected any figures on the number of applicants who have been refused by local authorities.

  Shared Ownership
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what estimate he has made of the proportion of registered social landlords who set rents for shared ownership properties in the range of 3 to 3.5 per cent. of equity; [99177]

  (2) what plans he has to require the Housing Corporation to (a) set benchmark rents for shared ownership properties and (b) monitor the performance of registered social landlords against these. [99178]

  Mr. McNulty
  The rent for a shared ownership property is a matter for the individual registered social landlord (RSL). The rent for new shared ownership schemes is dependent on a number of factors including levels of equity bought, development loans to be serviced by the association, sales receipts and consideration of what is affordable and marketable.

  The Housing Corporation does not analyse the proportion of registered social landlords (RSLs) who set rents for shared ownership properties in the range of 3 to 3.5 per cent. of equity.

  The Housing Corporation has agreed to lead a Task Force, to be chaired by Baroness Dean, which will look at existing programmes that support sustainable home ownership. Further details will be announced shortly.

  Sheltered Housing
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what guidelines his Department gives in respect of the construction standards for sheltered housing; what funding his Department provides for the refurbishment of sheltered housing; and if he will make a statement. [98867]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Government are committed to the provision of social housing including sheltered accommodation and have substantially increased resources provided to local authorities and the Housing Corporation for housing investment. The Housing Corporation's Approved Development Programme (ADP) may be used to refurbish sheltered housing in the ownership of a Registered Social Landlord (RSL). Since 1999 the Housing Corporation has approved some £22 million of ADP for sheltered housing accommodation schemes in respect of elderly people with warden support, and frail elderly people, improving 2,363 dwellings.

  No specific guidelines are given by the Department in respect of construction standards for sheltered housing. All building work must comply with the current Building Regulations 2000. New build sheltered housing schemes funded by the Housing Corporation must comply with their Scheme Development Standards.

  Starter Homes Initiatives
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what benefits will be received by(a) persons and (b) local authorities in areas covered by the Starter Homes Initiatives; and what criteria determines which (i) authorities and (ii) areas are chosen for that initiative. [99310]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is providing £250 million for the Starter Home Initiative (SHI) which aims to help around 10,000 key workers to buy their first homes. The assistance is primarily in the form of equity loans or shared ownership and is being administered by local scheme providers, mainly registered social landlords. The funding was allocated via two competitive bidding rounds.

  In the first round, bids were invited to administer schemes to help key workers in any area where the high cost of housing was undermining recruitment and retention. The main factors taken into account in making allocations were: the relative need for SHI based on house prices, incomes and assessments of recruitment and retention difficulties for key worker groups in different areas; and the cost effectiveness of competing bids.

  Second round bids were invited to help key workers in specific areas of the south east, eastern, south west and west Midlands regions. These areas were targeted taking into account recruitment and retention problems being experienced across different areas and the allocations made in round 1.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Benefits
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the cost was of(a) means-tested benefit paid to pensioners and (b) council tax relief and housing benefit paid to pensioners in 2001–02. [99151]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information requested is shown in the table:

  Estimated costs of means tested benefits for pensioners 2001–02(£s millions cash)

  Benefit

  Expenditure

  Minimum Income Guarantee

  4,486

  Housing Benefit

  4,225

  Council Tax Benefit

  1,320

  Total Means tested benefit

  10,031

  Minimum Income Guarantee
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the estimated cost is of the minimum income guarantee in 2002–03. [99150]

  Mr. McCartney
  The estimated cost of the minimum income guarantee in 2002/03 is £4.47 billion.

  Benefit Overpayment (Write-offs)
  Kevin Brennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many overpayments of benefit have been written off in the last five years on the basis of concern for the health of the claimant. [99456]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Between May 1998 and the end of 2002, 394 cases were waived due to the health and welfare criteria. Information for earlier periods is not available.

  Benefit Take-up
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps he is taking to encourage the take-up of(a) the minimum income guarantee and (b) attendance allowance; and if he will make a statement. [96846]

  Mr. McCartney
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 24 February 2003,Official Report, columns 190–91W.

  Departmental Vehicles
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what progress has been made, by(a) volume and (b) percentage for each category of

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  Staff employed

  356.91

  362.62

  451.45

  1004.31

  1112.54

  Transfers to private sector

  None

  None

  None

  None

  None

  Notes:

  1. Most smaller DWP filestores are managed within DWP core business and separate staffing figures are not available for some or all of the years in the table above.

  2. 1997–98 figures include data from 13 stores

  3. 1998–99 figures include data from 14 stores

  4. 1999–2000 figures include data from 20 stores

  5. 2000–01 figures include data from 44 stores

  6. 2001–02 figures include data from 62 stores

  870W
  (i) vehicle, (ii) type of power unit and (iii) type of fuel, on an annual
  basis, over each of the past three years, in renewal of his Department's and agencies' vehicle fleet on a lower emission basis. [97969]

  Mr. McCartney
  The composition of the Department's fleet is as follows:

  Petrol

  Diesel

  LPG

  Hybrid

  Percentage of Green Vehicles

  1/4/00

  488

  2105

  60

  0

  2.26

  1/4/01

  425

  1983

  238

  0

  8.99

  1/4/02

  652

  1864

  326

  16

  11 96

  12/02/03

  549

  1.745

  551

  19

  19.90

  On 1 April 2002, the Department took over responsibility for the former Employment Service fleet (600 vehicles), a large number of which were petrol. We have subsequently reduced these and will continue to do so when vehicles are replaced.

  The Department currently exceeds the targets set by Green Ministers, that being 10 per cent. of our fleet to be alternatively fuelled.

  Early Retirement
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much he expects his Department to spend on early retirement packages over the next five years; and how much the Department and its predecessor spent on such packages in the last five years. [99053]

  Mr. McCartney
  Historical costs associated with early exits from the Department's predecessors are only available for the last four years.

  (£)

  2002–03

  11,720,398 (to the end of January 03)

  2001–02

  15,850,518

  2000–01

  21,867,831

  1999–00

  24,227,124

  These include the cost of continuing annual payments.

  The need for early retirement packages is kept under review.

  File Stores
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people were employed in the departmental file stores in each year since 1997; how many have been transferred to the private sector; and if he will make a statement. [98855]

  Mr. McCartney
  The information requested is not available. Such information as is available is in the table.

  Full-time Equivalent Staff
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many full-time equivalent staff are employed in(a) the Department and (b) each of the agencies it sponsors; and what the figures were for 1997. [90663]

  Mr. McCartney
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply given by my hon. Friend the Minister of State at the Cabinet Office (Douglas Alexander) on 16 January 2003,Official Report, col 697W.

  Mr. Douglas Cowan
  Mr. Bacon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the operation of the Appeals Service for Social Security. Child Support and Vaccine Damage, with particular reference to the case of Mr.Douglas Cowan, a constituent. [99117]

  Maria Eagle
  This is a matter for Norman Egan. Acting Chief Executive of the Appeals Service. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Norman Egan to Mr. Richard Bacon dated February 2003:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to respond to your question regarding the administrative handling of an appeal from one of your constituents, Mr Douglas Gowan.
  The administrative side of the Appeals Service supports the judicial functioning of appeal tribunals. Appeal Tribunals consist of one, two or three members drawn by the President of appeal tribunals from the panel constituted under section 6 of the Social Security Act 1998. Panel members are appointed by the Lord Chancellor.
  The processing of the original appeal; handling of the application for set aside; listing of the case for a re-hearing; and, processing the request for a postponement were handled by the administrative side. The judicial functions were undertaken by the appeal tribunal or where appropriate, a legally qualified panel member, in accordance with the relevant legislation.
  After the decision by a legally qualified panel member to set aside the original appeal tribunal's decision, and having notified all the parties to the proceedings regarding the re-hearing scheduled for 18 February 2003, unfortunately a further notification was issued to Mr Gowan incorrectly advising him that the date was 18 March 2003. As soon as this error was identified a further notification was issued confirming the original date and apologising for any inconvenience caused. A request for a postponement was received and passed to a legally qualified panel member. Thelegally qualified panel member decided that it was in Mr Gowan's best interest if the hearing was not postponed. At the rehearing on 18 February the appeal tribunal adjourned the hearing to a later date having issued directions regarding further evidence needed to enable it to reach a decision.
  I hope this reply is helpful.

  Post-retirement Work
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the proportion of people that remain in work after reaching the retirement age; what measures there are to encourage people to remain in work; what proposals he has to help people over the retirement age re-enter work; and how many people in the UK over retirement age have been helped back into work. [87365]
  872W
  Mr. McCartney
  There is no state retirement age, only an age at which state pension becomes payable, currently 60 for women and 65 for men. Between 2010 and 2020 the women's state pension age will be gradually increased to 65.

  Figures that we published for spring 2002 showed that around 861,000 people over state pension age were in employment, 8.5 per cent. of the age group.

  The New Deal 50 plus programme, which offers tailored help with jobsearch, and an Employment Credit and training grant, is open to people on qualifying benefits who are over 50. There is no upper age limit for eligibility to the programme, and people over the state pension age can take advantage of the help available.

  We are encouraging people to adopt more flexible approaches to retirement. In "Simplicity, security and choice: Working and saving for retirement" (Cm 5677) published 17 December, we have proposed changes to Inland Revenue rules that will allow people to continue to work for their employer, or return to work for them, and draw their occupational pension at the same time.

  To encourage more people to consider later retirement, we will bring forward the date of any increase to the increments people gain if they defer their state pension so that people can benefit from it as soon as possible.

  To help people over state pension age to re-enter work we are promoting vigorously the benefits, to both employers and individuals, of an age diverse work force, including the recruitment and retention of older workers as part of our AgePositive campaign. In 2006 we will introduce legislation to make it unlawful to discriminate against people, on the grounds of age, in employment and vocational training. Under the legislation, compulsory retirement ages are likely to he unlawful, unless employers can objectively justify them.

  The DWP has a programme of research designed to further understanding of the labour market participation of people over 50, in particular retirement behaviour and the barriers to work encountered by this age group. The research includes a project examining the circumstances under which people work after state pension age, the jobs they do, and the impact of working after state pension age on their health, wealth and happiness, compared with the non-working retired population. This research shows that 9 per cent. of women over 60 and 8 per cent. of men over 65 are in employment.

  The report will be published in spring 2003 and will be followed by a second stage of qualitative work, which will explore, amongst other things, what would encourage people to stay in work after state pension age.

  Retirement Age
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his policy is on allowing civil servants to retire at the age of 65. [90029]

  Mr. McCartney
  The Government have already begun to address the social and economic consequences of demographic change in its role as employer. One of the recommendations of Winning the Generation Game was that public sector employers should review their
  873W
  retirement ages and examine the case for allowing those who want to work on to age 65 to do so. Already 75 per cent. of civil servants now have the option to retire at 65 and the numbers able to serve beyond 60 are expected to increase.

  All staff in the Department for Work and Pensions, below the Senior Civil Service, are able to choose to remain in employment beyond the age of 60 for any period of time up to the age of 65.

  "Staff in the Senior Civil Service normally retire at the age of 60 but the Head of the Department and Agency Chief Executives have flexibility to retain members of the Senior Civil Service beyond age 60 if they judge it in the public interest and they are satisfied about the fitness and efficiency of the individual to carry out his or her duties. The most senior posts require written approval from the Head of the Home Civil Service to be retained for longer than three months beyond their 60th birthday."

  This is based on an extract from the Civil Service Management Code.

  Most public service pension schemes, however, still allow a normal pension to be taken at 60 or under. The Government is seeking views on the proposal that the rules of public service pension schemes should be changed and applied to all new members during the next few years to make an unreduced pension payable from age 65 rather than 60. Such a change would reflect improved longevity, modern working patterns and the practice in the majority of private sector pension schemes.

  Targeted Audits
  Kevin Brennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what proportion of targeted audits carried out by medical services and categorised as grade C have been judged to be fit for purpose. [99457]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information requested is not available.

HEALTH

  Laming Inquiry
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which recommendations of the Laming inquiry into the death of Victoria Climbie the Government intend to implement; and by what date each will be implemented. [95619]

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which recommendations in the Laming Report the Government agree with and intend to put in practice; and by when. [96033]

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) pursuant to the answer of 29 January 2003,Official Report, column 879, on Victoria Climbié, when the recommendations from the Laming Inquiry will be implemented; [95700]

  (2) if he will set out for each (a) category 1 and (b) category 2 recommendations in the Laming Report, (i) whether he accepts or rejects it, (ii) if accepted, what
  874W
  steps he is taking to act on it and to what timescale and (iii) if rejected, what his reasons are and what alternative actions he proposes to take. [96634]

  Jacqui Smith
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health made clear in the House, we will make our substantive response to the report as part of the Green Paper on Children at Risk, which will be published in the spring. We have already begun to implement many of Lord Laming's recommendations and we will say more in the Green Paper.

  A and E Departments (Junior Doctors)
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of doctors in accident and emergency departments are junior doctors. [99316]

  Mr. Hutton
  The table shows the proportion of doctors in accident and emergency departments who are junior doctors.

  Hospital medical doctors in training with an Accident and Emergency specialty: as at 30 September 2002

  England

  Numbers (headcount)

  All doctors within A&E specialty

  3,220

  Of which:

  Doctors in training within A&E specialty

  1,910

  (as percentage of total)

  59.2

  Note:

  Figures are rounded to the nearest 10.

  Source:

  Department of Health medical and dental workforce census

  Age-related Macular Degeneration
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will place in the Library the representations from(a) the Royal College of Ophthalmologists and (b) the RNIB on age-related macular degeneration. [97859]

  Mr. Lammy
  Letters received from the Royal College of Ophthalmologists and the Royal National Institute for the Blind in relation to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence's appraisal of photodynamic therapy have been placed in the Library. I am grateful to these organisations for their agreement to release the letters.

  NICE do not release to a third party any documents received by it from consultees, including submissions, correspondence, responses to formal consultation and statement of appeal against the Final Appraisal Determination, before the completion of its appraisal.

  Attention Deficit Disorder
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will commission research on the prevalence of(a) ADD and (b) ADHD in adults. [99678]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department is currently committing substantial funding to a research programme in support of the implementation of the mental health national service framework. New priorities for research are continually being identified through consultation and this topic will be considered alongside others that emerge through this process.

  Barnet Chase Farm Trust
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement as to the future clinical strategy for Barnet Chase Farm Trust; [98940]

  (2) what plans he has to move elective surgery from Barnet hospital to Chase Farm hospital; and if he will make a statement; [98936]

  (3) when he expects Barnet Chase Farm hospital to publish its proposals for the Masterplan reconfiguring services on its trust's two sites; what consultative arrangements will be in place to allow the public to consider its proposals; and if he will make a statement; [98948]

  (4) what steps are being taken to create a unified management system for Barnet and Chase Farm Trust; what savings are expected from such unification; and if he will make a statement.[98942]

  Mr. Hutton
  Barnet and Chase Farm hospital national health service trust is continuing to work with local stakeholders in line with national policies over public and patient involvement to develop a clinical services strategy. At present there are no proposals for change.

  Care Homes
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many and what percentage of admissions to care homes of people over the age of(a) 50 and (b) 65 in each of the last five years for which figures are available have been as a result of a fall. [100111]

  Jacqui Smith
  Information on the numbers of admission to care homes for people over the age of 50 and 65 as a result of a fall are not collected centrally. The national service framework for older people recognises that injury resulting from a fall can be a major factor in premature admission to long-term residential care. It sets out a standard and milestones for the development of integrated falls services that cover prevention, effective treatment and care of those who have fallen and appropriate rehabilitation.

  Congestion Charges
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made as to the impact congestion charging in Central London will have on(a) doctors, (b) nurses, (c) consultants, (d) paramedics and (e) ancillary staff in the NHS; and if he will make a statement. [97842]

  Mr. Hutton
  The congestion charging scheme includes a number of measures which will minimise impact of congestion charging on national health service staff. This includes:Exemption of NHS vehicles currently exempt from vehicle excise duty, including ambulances and paramedic vehicles.
  A provision to reimburse journeys by NHS staff required to carry specified items, such as controlled drugs or confidential information, as part of their operational duties, that should not be transported on public transport.
  A provision to reimburse journeys by NHS staff for the purpose of providing emergency on-call services.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he plans to reply to the letter of Mr. D.F.D. Malein of Milford on Sea of 16 December 2001. [94220]

  Mr. Lammy
  On behalf of my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Health, officials from the Department responded to the points raised in Mr. D.F.D. Malein's letter on 10 February 2003.

  Delayed Discharges
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what procedures are being put in place to reimburse local authorities who may be subject to the impact of delayed discharges legislation. [97042]

  Jacqui Smith
  On 28 November, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health announced that £100 million per full year of the legislation would be transferred from the national health service to local authorities in order to meet the costs of reimbursement. Areas which are already tackling delayed discharge should have more of this additional funding available to spend on services. An announcement on how this funding is to be distributed will be made shortly.

  Hearing Aids
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on progress made in the training of staff to fit digital hearing aids in the second wave of hospital trusts to receive funding for the purpose. [99405]

  Jacqui Smith
  The training of staff is progressing satisfactorily and is on schedule to enable all second-wave sites to begin fitting digital hearing aids by the end of March.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many of the second wave of hospital trusts to receive funding for the roll-out of digital hearing aids(a) are fitting the new devices and (b) will have begun to fit the new devices by the end of March. [99406]

  Jacqui Smith
  Seventeen of the 30 second-wave sites are already fitting digital hearing aids as part of a modernised service. The remaining 13 will have begun to fit them by the end of March.

  The Government are investing £94 million over the next two years to spread the benefits of digital hearing aids across the whole of England by April 2005.

  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what estimate he has made of the savings to be had by patients requiring digital hearing aids if registered hearing aid dispensers were enabled to access the NHS hearing aid contract; and if he will make a statement; [99660]

  (2) when the evaluation of pilot projects in Shrewsbury and Leeds to examine the role that the private sector may play in supporting the modernisation of NHS hearing aid service will be completed; and if he will make a statement; [99661]
  877W
  (3) what plans there are to train registered hearing aid dispensers to NHS standards so that they can access the NHS hearing aid contract; and if he will make a statement. [99662]

  Jacqui Smith
  On 7 February 2003, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health announced a £94 million investment to support the modernisation of hearing aid services, including the provision of digital hearing aids throughout England, by April 2005. Rollout plans include boosting national health service capacity and improving access for patients by extending public/private partnerships.

  The pilot private sector projects in Shrewsbury and Leeds have now been evaluated. The results of the pilot show that private sector hearing aid dispensers can be contracted to fit, assess and follow-up NHS patients with no detriment to the outcome for these patients.

  Private sector partners in Shrewsbury and Leeds provided hearing aids obtained via the NHS hearing aid contract for the NHS patients treated as part of the pilot. NHS patients were not charged for their treatment or for the hearing aids. We intend that these arrangements will apply to extended private sector partnership arrangements. There are no plans to give hearing aid dispensers access to the NHS hearing aid contract for their private patients. Hearing aid dispensers in Leeds and Shrewsbury received training to enable them to provide a modernised service to NHS patients, including fitting digital hearing aids. Dispensers involved in extended private partnerships arrangements will be required to meet similar standards of competence and experience.

  Domestic Violence
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether GP practice nurses are given training to deal with domestic violence victims. [97122]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Government are committed to tackling domestic violence and have set up a Ministerial group working across Government to provide coordinated and concerted action, including the promotion of education and awareness raising.

  The Department of Health published "Domestic Violence: A Resource Manual for Health Care Professionals" in March 2000. The resource manual provides a solid foundation for local multi-agency work and supports health care professionals and managers in developing their domestic violence policies, protocols and services to ensure victims receive the support they need. Building on this initiative, in 2001, as part of a three year health visitor and school nurse practice development programme, resource packs were produced which included information on dealing with domestic violence as a health priority.

  An extra £50 million has been made available over the past two years to ensure that National Health Service employers have the capacity to deliver health professional training and development effectively and to ensure that all staff, including nurses working in general practice, have better access to training programmes.

  GP Patient Survey
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the general practice patient survey conducted by the National Centre for Social Research will be published. [98918]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 27 February 2003]: The Department is currently making arrangements for the effective dissemination of the results of the general practice services survey.

  Health Service Finance
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the income of each primary care trust per head of population served will be in 2003–04. [99554]

  Mr. Hutton
  Primary care trusts revenue allocations per weighted and unweighted head of population in 2003–04 have been placed in the Library.

  Hospitality
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how often Ministers in his Department have received hospitality in restaurants from outside groups in the last 12 months; [99502]

  (2) what hospitality has been offered at public expense in the last 12 months, by each Minister in his Department to outside interest groups, broken down by (a) restaurant, (b) recipient and (c) cost in each case; [99579]

  (3) what criteria Ministers in his Department use when determining whether to offer hospitality in restaurants to interest groups at public expense; and if he will make a statement. [99578]

  Mr. Lammy
  All offers of hospitality are made in accordance with published departmental guidance on financial procedures and propriety, based on the principles set out in "Government Accounting". The giving and receiving of hospitality is conducted fully in accordance with the guidance set out in the "Ministerial Code and Guidance on Contacts with Outside Interest Groups including Lobbyists". The detailed information requested is not held centrally, and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his Department's hospitality budget(a) is in 2002–03 and (b) was in each of the last three years; and how much was left unspent at the end of each financial year. [99503]

  Mr. Lammy
  Expenditure arises on hospitality and entertainment only in the context of promoting the Department's business objectives. All such expenditure is made in accordance with published departmental guidance on financial procedures and propriety, based on the principles set out in "Government Accounting".

  No specific budget amount is allocated for hospitality, which is only one element of the Department's overall administrative budget. The amount spent in recent financial years is shown in the table.
  879W

  Amount (£)

  2002–03

  196,935

  2001–02

  121,968

  2000–01

  93,091

  1999–2000

  50,114

  1Up to 31 January 2003.

  In-patient Survey
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the in-patient survey conducted last year will be published. [98920]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 27 February 2003]: Local patient survey results are included in "Your Guide to Local Health Services", which primary care trusts published for the first time at the end of 2002 and will be published annually.

  National Institute for Clinical Excellence
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the extent to which acute trusts are rationing drugs that have been approved by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence; and if he will make a statement. [99727]

  Mr. Lammy
  National health service bodies are under a statutory obligation to provide funding for treatments recommended by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. We expect them to meet this obligation.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if it is his policy that drugs that have been approved by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence should be available to all patients whose clinicians judge that they would benefit from them. [99734]

  Mr. Lammy
  Our policy is that treatments appraised by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) should be made available in accordance with recommendations of NICE.

  NHS Chief Executives
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what rules and guidance govern disclosure of the salaries of NHS chief executives. [98959]

  Mr. Hutton
  The guidance issued to National Health Service bodies with regard to the disclosure of the remuneration of chief executives and other senior managers is contained within manuals for accounts. These documents detail the format of annual accounts and reports that NHS bodies are required to present to public meetings. Individuals may decline to give their consent to have this information published relying on the Data Protection Act 1998. In this case, their decision to withhold the information should be disclosed in the published accounts. The current guidance for the accounting period 2002–03 is being placed in the Library.

  NHS Direct
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average length of call was to NHS Direct between(a) 15 October 2001 and 10 February 2002 and (b) 15 October 2002 and 10 February 2003. [97820]
  880W
  Mr. Lammy
  NHS Direct did not consistently start collecting call length data until April 2002. The average length of call to NHS Direct from April 2002 is shown in the table.

  NHS Direct—national average nurse call length in seconds

  Average call length

  April 2002

  835

  May 2002

  834

  June 2002

  829

  July 2002

  813

  August 2002

  796

  September 2002

  794

  October 2002

  767

  November 2002

  744

  December 2002

  693

  January 2003

  685

  NHS Estates (PFI)
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what contact his Department has had with the public sector team of the fraud squad concerning the NHS estates PFI scheme; and if he will make a statement. [97531]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 12 February 2003]: Allegations of fraud which are brought to the Department's attention are investigated by the National Health Service Counter Fraud Service (CFS). For obvious reasons, it is not our practice to comment one way or the other on the detail of investigations which may or may not be taking place or on the conduct of any investigation or on contacts with other agencies with whom the CFS routinely works.

  NHS Operations
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate how many instruments were retained after NHS operations in each of the last six years. [98919]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 27 February 2003]: At the present time, we do not know how many medical errors of this kind affect national health service patients each year.

  However, retained instruments and in particular swabs, are a recognised patient safety issue, both nationally and internationally.

  The Government have established the National Patient Safety Agency to improve the safety of NHS patient care by promoting an open and fair culture and by introducing a national reporting and learning system for adverse events. It is planned for the system to be rolled out across the NSH from summer 2003. The reporting and learning system will, in time, enable us to understand the nature and extent of adverse events in the NHS, including material retained within patients, and take action to prevent them being repeated.

  Orthopaedic Surgery (Leeds)
  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average waiting time for orthopaedic surgery in Leeds was over the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [98416]
  881W
  Jacqui Smith
  Information on waiting times is published quarterly on the Department of Health website. This is broken down into both in-patient and out-patient waiting times by national health service trusts by consultant specialty. This information can be accessed at http://www.doh.gov.uk/waitingtimes/ index. htm

  Parliamentary Question
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the hon. Member for West Chelmsford will receive an answer to his question of 4 February 2003, ref 95210; and if he will make a statement on the reason for the delay in answering. [100132]

  Mr. Hutton
  I have replied to the hon. Member today. I apologise for the delay in answering.

  Patient Choice
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who will determine whether a patient in West Yorkshire needing an eye operation is eligible to choose an alternative hospital. [99106]

  Mr. Hutton
  Approval has recently been given by the Department of Health to the establishment of a national health service based Choice pilot scheme. This is to be based at Westwood Park Diagnostic and Treatment Centre (DTC), Bradford, and will be managed by Bradford South and West Primary Care Trust to deliver day surgery cataract extraction. When fully up and running in April 2004, the pilot proposes that the NHS will offer all patients registered with a general practitioner in West Yorkshire the choice of either referral directly to Westwood Park DTC or to attend for treatment at their local hospital.

  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what additional resources he has made available to NHS trusts in London to implement the London pilot scheme extending choice for patients. [97378]

  Mr. Hutton
  The approved funding for the London Patient Choice Pilot project during the financial year 2002–03 is £75 million.

  Primary Care Trusts
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what salary is paid to each primary care trust chief executive in England; and what the average salary for chief executives of primary care groups in England was in the year to 31 October 2002. [95210]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 4 February 2003]: Information on the salaries of individual primary care trust and primary care group chief executives is not available centrally. I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave on 24 October 2002, Official Report, column 509W.

  Primary care trusts are required to disclose in their published accounts details of the remuneration of senior managers, including the chief executive. Individuals may decline to give their consent to have this information published, relying on the Data Protection
  882W
  Act 1998. In this case, their decision to withhold the information should be disclosed in the published accounts.

  Salaries of primary care trust chief executives range from £78,625 to £107,500. However, in exceptional cases, the figures paid may be lower or higher. A copy of the framework used to determine the salaries for primary care trust chief executives in 2002–03 has been placed in the Library.

  Remuneration for primary care group chief executives was decided in line with Health Service Circular (HSC) 1998/017 by the PCG Board, and overseen by the health authority Remuneration Committee, who considered the weight of the post against other health authority senior managers when setting the level of remuneration. There was local flexibility to remunerate at a higher (or lower) band where appropriate. Salaries of primary care group chief executives ranged from £26,000 to £50,000. A copy of HSC 1998/017 has been placed in the Library.

  Prison Doctors
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many doctors work in prisons in England and Wales; and how many of these are qualified to general practitioner level. [99534]

  Jacqui Smith
  There are 543 doctors working in prisons in England and Wales as at January 2003, providing primary care and specialist services.

  Of the 109 directly employed by the Prison Service to provide primary care services, 26 are not qualified to general practitioner level. They are either engaging in training towards GP or psychiatric qualification, or arrangements are being made for them to work under appropriate supervision.

  Private Businesses (Forms)
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the forms that his Department requires private sector businesses to complete and return. [98092]

  Mr. Hutton
  Under the Government's arrangements for managing the collection of information from private sector businesses, the Department of Health collected information from private nursing homes, hospitals and clinics only up to 31 March 2001. Responsibility for collecting similar data now rests with the National Care Standards Commission.

  Private Healthcare Companies
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many operations were carried out in each of the last five years by private healthcare companies using national health service facilities; [97186]

  (2) what total revenue was generated in each of the last five years from the use of national health service facilities by private healthcare companies. [97169]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department of Health does not hold information centrally on the use by private healthcare companies of national health service facilities, nor on the revenue generated as a result.

  Severalls Hospital Site
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who is handling the sale of the former Severalls hospital site in Colchester; and when he expects the sale to be completed. [99698]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 27 February 2003]: Severalls hospital site in Colchester is one of a number of properties included in the one-off sale of remaining retained estate being handled by NHS Estates, an executive agency of the Department of Health.

  The sale is expected to be completed, subject to approval, by September 2003.

  Student Work Placements
  Mr. Allen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many university students his Department and associated agencies have supported or sponsored with a work placement in the last year; what his policy is on work placements; what plans he has to develop such schemes; and what his policy is on paying their university fees. [98532]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department supported nine undergraduate students in 2002–03 through the Windsor Fellowship Organisation—funded centrally. The Department only keeps records of centrally organised programmes and so there are no records held on ad-hoc work placement sponsorship. The information is shown in the table.
  884W

  Agency

  Number of student sponsored in the last year

  NHS Pensions Agency

  0

  NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency

  0

  NHS Estates Agency

  2

  Medicines Device Agency

  0

  Medicines Control Agency

  0

  For the national health service, medical undergraduates undertake placements in a clinical setting during the third to fifth years of their degree courses. The Department reimburses NHS organisations for the additional costs they incur in providing such placements, of which there were 11,400 in 2001–02.

  The NHS does not collect information on when NHS non-medical pre-registration students undertake their practice placements. As a general rule, NHS students are required to undertake practice placements which account for approximately 50 per cent. of the university course and these are unpaid.

  All pre-registration non-medical NHS students have their personal tuition fee met from departmental funds. Course tuition fees are also met by work force development confederations through the contracts they hold with universities.

  In the 2001–02 financial year, the number of preregistration nursing and midwifery students was 54,313 and the number of pre-registration allied health profession, dental hygienist and dental therapist students was 15,178.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Ruddy Duck Control
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mr. Elliot Morley)
  The North American ruddy duck is an introduced non-native species. A native of North America, where it has a secure conservation status, it was introduced to wildfowl collections in the UK in the 1940s, but a small number escaped from captivity and began to breed in the wild. As the UK population of wild ruddy ducks has risen, so has the number of ruddy ducks on the European mainland. The ruddy duck has been proven to hybridise with the globally threatened white-headed duck in Spain. The West European population of white-headed ducks is estimated at around 2,300 birds and hybridisation is recognised as the most significant threat to the species' long-term survival.

  In July 2002, my Department published the results of the ruddy duck control trial, copies of which are available in the Library of the House. The report indicates that eradication of ruddy ducks from the United Kingdom was feasible within ten years, and that shooting was the most effective means of control tested in the trial.

  Defra sought advice from its statutory scientific advisors and consulted with the devolved administrations on the outcome of the trial, and the next steps to protect the white-headed duck from the threat of hybridisation. It took the views of landowners and non-governmental organisations, and on 27 February I met representatives of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, the Wildfowl and Wetlands Trust and the Wildlife Trusts.

  On the basis of these discussions the Government agree in principle that eradication of the ruddy duck in United Kingdom is the preferred outcome. The UK holds by far the largest proportion of ruddy ducks in Europe, and without action in the UK, the survival of the white headed duck as a distinct species would be severely compromised. However, in confirming this decision, the Government have also concluded:
  that further research work into control techniques is still required. This will determine more efficient techniques of control, and further explore the use of alternative control measures, such as egg pricking;
  that the protection provided by domestic legislation to protect the ruddy duck should be removed;
  that the UK cannot act alone in removing the threat posed by the ruddy duck. We will continue to work with our European partners to ensure that all appropriate action is taken to sustain the white headed duck.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH

  Bermuda: Order in Council
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Mike O'Brien)
  On 27 February, an Order in Council was made to amend the Constitution of Bermuda. This amendment, which has received widespread political support in Bermuda, will change the system of elections to Bermuda's House of Assembly from 20 dual-seat constituencies to 36 single-seat constituencies, as recommended by the Bermuda Constituency Boundaries Commission in its 2002 report.

  The consultation process adopted in deciding upon this amendment has highlighted concerns in Bermuda that there should be a clear and generally acceptable procedure for considering future proposals for constitutional amendment. The Secretary of State wishes to ensure that, subject to the sovereign rights of Her Majesty, the process of considering such proposals is as transparent as possible, and that the citizens and political parties of Bermuda are consulted as widely as possible before changes are made. He has therefore asked the Governor to explore the issue locally to see whether interested parties in Bermuda can come forward with acceptable proposals for procedures to be followed in future, which can then be put to him for consideration. These proposals are to include the means by which the public is consulted over proposed constituency boundary changes when a future Constituency Boundaries Commission is undertaking its work. The Secretary of State understands that the Governor plans to canvass suggestions from individuals, political parties and organisations.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Terrorism (Civil Contingency Planning)
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett)
  The Government moved to strengthen arrangements for emergency planning and civil protection immediately after the 2001 general election. In July 2001 a new Civil Contingencies Secretariat (CCS) was created within the Cabinet Office, bringing together the Home Office's former responsibilities for emergency planning with a new capability at the centre of Government to assess and respond to emergencies as they arise. In August 2001 the CCS published a comprehensive review of emergency planning arrangements in England and Wales.

  The September 11 2001 attacks in New York and Washington, however, changed our understanding of the terrorist threat.

  In the aftermath of those attacks, the UK Government instigated a comprehensive review of the UK's preparedness and contingency plans to deal with terrorist threats. This led to new organisational arrangements with all relevant Departments working together, co-ordinated at the centre with the Home Secretary in overall charge, and to the passing of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security (ATCS) Act 2001.
  73WS
  Today the House will debate the continuance of Sections 21–23 of the ATCS Act which are measures designed to pre-empt a terrorist attack. This statement, which will be referred to in the debate, deals with the other side of preparedness which is the ability to respond to an incident if it occurs. The statement sets out improvements in contingency planning that have taken place and announces the next steps in improving our resilience, including plans for legislation.

  IMPROVEMENTS TO CONTINGENCY PLANNING

  Measures already put in place to improve preparedness to deal with terrorist attacks should they occur are:

  Chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear (CBRN) threats

  The Home Office leads on dealing with CBRN threats. The first responders, the emergency services, whose capability to cope with these threats is the key to minimising loss of life, have had major investment in equipment and training:

  AMBULANCE AND A&E SERVICES

  Under a £5 million programme, the Department of Health has provided 360 mobile decontamination units and 7,250 national specification Personal Protection Equipment (PPE) suits around the country, which will enable the Ambulance Service and A&E Departments to treat people contaminated with CBRN material.

  POLICE

  The CBRN Police Training Centre has been established at Winterbourne Gunner and has already delivered command training to at least four Commanders from each force.

  The police now have over 2,350 officers trained and equipped in CBRN response, and this training roll-out is continuing.

  FIRE SERVICE

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (HM Fire Service Inspectorate) has signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Department of Health which provides for Fire Fighters to support the Ambulance Service by decontaminating people at a CBRN incident.

  Fire brigades have all been involved in work to prepare for this role and an interim decontamination methodology has been disseminated to all brigades; £43 million from the Capital Modernisation Fund, plus an extra £13 million from ODPM has been provided for the Fire Service to provide a national mass decontamination capability. Procurement of equipment (response vehicles, portable contamination facilities and specialist protective clothing) is underway, supported by development of training.

  HEALTH

  The Department of Health, in conjunction with Health Departments in Devolved Administrations, is funding measures to counter bio-terrorism: A UK Reserve National Stock of vaccines and antibiotics suitable for the treatment of infectious diseases and specialist equipment has been built up over the past year and now stands ready for deployment. Guidance on handling infectious diseases was disseminated throughout the NHS in October 2001.

  As the Minister of State for Health announced on 2 December 2002, 12 Regional Smallpox Response Groups are being established around the UK. Vaccine will be offered to volunteer healthcare personnel who will be able to react quickly and work safely with patients of actual or suspected smallpox. A similar group of specialist military
  74WS
  personnel will also receive vaccination against smallpox. We have also identified reference laboratory centres capable of rapid diagnosis of the disease.

  A total of £16 million was allocated by the Department of Health in 2001/02 to provide medical counter-measures against CBRN agents and a further £80 million has been allocated for 2002/03, including spending on extra vaccines and antibiotics.

  CIVIL NUCLEAR INSTALLATIONS

  Companies operating Civil Nuclear Installations have always been required to have in place robust, detailed and well-rehearsed plans for responding to radiological releases. These plans involve the emergency services and local authorities in the surrounding area and are regularly checked by the Nuclear industries Inspectorate.

  The arrangements were significantly enhanced following the Chernobyl disaster in 1986, and have been thoroughly reviewed and further enhanced since 11 September 2001.

  An improved fire-fighting capability means that fires can quickly be brought under control. Central stores of specialist equipment for use in mitigating the spread of radiation have also been established by the nuclear industry. Contingency plans were tested against the threat posed by a major incident at a live exercise in Bradwell on 10 May last year.

  PROTOCOLS AND GUIDANCE

  All the emergency services have specific protocols for dealing with chemical or biological attack. These are regularly practised and refined. On 3 February 2003 the Home Office published Strategic National Guidance on the Decontamination of People exposed to Chemical, Biological, Radiological or Nuclear Substances or Materials for use by emergency services and other responders.

  NATIONAL CAPABILITY

  The Government have in place a programme of work to enhance 11 key generic capabilities that will allow us to respond to the most demanding emergencies, however caused. The Civil Contingencies Secretariat manages this programme and drives the progress of Departments involved in delivering each of the capabilities, which are:

  central response

  local response

  decontamination

  site clearance

  treatment of infectious diseases

  treatment of mass casualties

  mass evacuation

  identification and assessment

  warning, informing and alerting

  dealing with mass fatalities.

  LOCAL AND REGIONAL CAPABILITY

  The local response capability is one of the key building blocks of the UK's resilience. The Government maintain close contact with local responders, including the Local Authorities and the emergency services, through formal and informal channels.
  Action has been taken to improve communications with local and regional responders through face to face briefings at senior level, presentations by the Civil Contingencies Secretariat at Emergency Planning College courses and a series of workshops in January and February 2003 in each of the Government Offices of the Regions to brief

  75WS
  responders, including Emergency Planning Officers and the emergency services, on plans to enhance the regional resilience capability.
  Local Authorities have been allocated a specific Civil Defence grant of £19 million for 2002–3 which is a third more than the previous year. The grant is central government's contribution to civil protection work undertaken by Local Authorities and is just part of what Local Authorities spend on resilience.

  LONDON RESILIENCE

  London has lived with the threat of terrorism for over 30 years. Operational responses are well co-ordinated, regularly practised and continually reviewed, Since September 11 2001, additional measures taken include:
  In 2002–3, £49 million counter-terrorism funding to the Metropolitan police.
  Detailed work by London Underground with the emergency services and Security Services to ensure systems are in place to deter or deal with an attack.
  A new Cabinet sub-committee for London Resilience and the setting up of the London Resilience Team to review and plan London's preparedness. A new strategic emergency planning regime in the capital has been established, managed by the London Resilience Forum which Nick Raynsford, the Minister for London Resilience, chairs and within which a wide range of interests are represented including the Mayor.
  Information is available through http:// www.londonprepared.gov.uk.

  HORIZON SCANNING

  We are now better able to anticipate and prepare for the potential impact of terrorist threats through a new capability within the Cabinet Office to identify potential challenges to the smooth operation of Government or the life of the nation. This complements the work of the Joint Intelligence Committee which provides strategic assessments on domestic and overseas terrorist threats.

  ORGANISATIONAL ARRANGEMENTS

  Clear leads at Ministerial and Department level have been established and central resources provided to plan and coordinate contingency planning for terrorist threats:
  John Denham was appointed Minister for CBRN coordination, reporting to myself, at the end of 2001. The Home Office is the lead Department in preparing and responding to public order and terrorist incidents.
  Sir David Omand was appointed as Security and Intelligence Co-ordinator and Permanent Secretary to the Cabinet Office in July 2002 to enhance capacity at the centre to coordinate security, intelligence and contingency management.
  The CCS was set up in June 2001 to improve the UK's resilience to disruptive challenge through working with others inside and outside Government on anticipation, preparation, prevention and resolution.

  The CCS placed a paper in the Library on 23 July 2002 setting out the role of the lead Government Departments in planning for and managing crises. All Departments have a responsibility to plan, prepare, train and exercise for handling major incidents and emergencies in their areas of responsibility. The Devolved Administrations are responsible for elements of emergency planning in their own jurisdictions and are invited to attend meetings of appropriate Cabinet Office committees to ensure co-ordination across the UK.
  76WS
  We believe this arrangement of central co-ordination, accountable to Ministers, coupled with Departmental responsibility for delivery is the best resilience structure. It engages a wider pool of expertise, avoids the need for a huge new bureaucracy at the centre while at the same time has a clear chain of command.

  Information for agencies and the public is available through www.ukresilience.info/ and http:// www.homeoffice.gov.uk./

  NEXT STEPS IN IMPROVING OUR RESILIENCE

  Strengthening Regional resilience

  We are improving our ability to co-ordinate planning for major emergencies at a regional level by recruiting resilience teams in each Regional Government Office. Teams will be in place by 1 April 2003. These will be dedicated units, similar to the London Resilience team but on a smaller scale, to enhance regional civil contingency planning, including dealing with terrorist threats and other major emergencies.
  From April 2003, each Government Office, in addition to their regular contacts with emergency planning officers, will arrange an annual meeting to bring together senior CCS staff and local emergency planning staff. The Home Office will provide an input on counter-terrorism and CBRN consequence management to these meetings.
  A larger role for the Reserves in home defence and security authorities if they are asked to do so.
  The Volunteer Reserves are a capable, integrated and usable part of our resource for military operations of all types at home and abroad. The limited measures we are now implementing represent a highly effective way to build a new capability to meet some of the home defence risks which 11 September 2001 highlighted. By the end of 2003 there will be 14 Civil Contingency Reaction Forces (CCRFs), each comprising up to 500 volunteers drawn from existing Reservists. Each will be based on a Territorial Army infantry battalion. Army division and brigade headquarters will provide regional, planning, liaison and command and control capability for home defence operations. Brigades will work closely with the emergency services and local authorities to develop specific plans for the use of CCRFs in their areas.
  Any military participation, including the deployment of Reserves, in the response to a counter-terrorist threat would be at the request of the Chief Constable in the Force area where the incident occurred and would be subject to Ministerial decision.

  A CO-ORDINATED EXERCISE PROGRAMME

  An important element of resilience is the confidence that plans will be effective on the day. A prioritised programme of exercises is being drawn up that will reflect and test effectively the lead Government responsibilities, the involvement of devolved administrations, regional and local authorities and other responders.
  Under this new programme of co-ordinated exercises, it will be possible to test whether all key stakeholders are appropriately engaged and working together. Future planned exercises will cover a catastrophic incident in central London (this exercise will take place shortly), disruption to the national gas supply and flood defences. The programme is expected to cover the 11 key capabilities such as mass evacuation and decontamination.

  PLANNED LEGISLATION

  The Government are preparing new Civil Contingencies legislation—a step recommended by the local emergency planning community. We will issue proposals for a new Civil Contingencies Bill in the summer. The aim will be to

  77WS
  produce a single statutory and regulatory framework for dealing with all forms of disruptive challenge to modern society including those from terrorist attack.

  The legislation will enhance the local response by providing clarity and certainty about roles and responsibilities. It will replace existing legislation, which in some cases dates back to the 1920s, with more modern equivalents. The justification for the legislation is the desirability of putting in place for the long term a solid administrative and legal structure within which emergency planning can develop. It is not driven by operational deficiencies in relation to the present counter-terrorist effort.

DEFENCE

  QinetiQ (Long-term Partnering Agreement)
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie)
  I am pleased to announce that, after 12 months negotiations and restructuring work, the MOD has successfully concluded a long term partnering agreement (LTPA) with QinetiQ for the 78WS
  delivery of the MOD's Test and Evaluation requirements. MOD customers examined a number of options for the delivery of future test and evaluation services and concluded that a long term partnering agreement with QinetiQ was the approach most likely to maximise value for money and ensure the continuing success of these key capabilities.

  The new contract, which will take effect from 1 April 2003, will replace the current short-term Facilities Management Contract, which was put in place at QinetiQ vesting and which is due to expire on 31 March.

  The LTPA contract, which is worth up to £5.6 billion to QinetiQ over its 25 year life, will progressively introduce efficiency measures and innovation in order to reduce overall Test and Evaluation costs. The contract, which will be the subject of periodic review at agreed intervals, is expected to deliver savings to MOD of around £700 million (at current prices) over its lifetime.

  The LTPA establishes a framework within which the MoD's relationship with its contractor can grow. QinetiQ will be given opportunities to develop further innovation and make proposals to achieve better value for money and, based on performance, there will be opportunities for business growth.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Rochester.

MoD Ship Charters
Lord Burnhamasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether ships chartered by the Ministry of Defence to transport British military forces to the Gulf will be re-flagged to the Red Ensign; and whether they will be required to operate with, as a minimum, a British master.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach): My Lords, UK Armed Forces personnel are being transported to the Gulf either by air or on Royal Navy ships. Any decision to re-flag ships chartered to transport cargo to the Gulf is given careful consideration. Factors informing any decision include the planned use of the ship; the requirement to carry military escorts and the current nationality of the flag state. Four of the ships chartered for the current operation have been re-flagged to the Red Ensign. The nationality of crews is a matter for the ships' owners.
Lord Burnham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer, which to some degree is satisfactory. Would it be possible to re-flag these ships to the Blue Ensign as fleet auxiliaries? As regards ships other than the four to which he referred, are the contracts tight enough to prevent their national owners insisting that they take part in an operation not in accordance with the wishes of Her Majesty's Government?
Finally, will the Minister reply to the second half of my Question?
Lord Bach: My Lords, the contracts with the owners of the ships are sufficiently tight. The difficulty is that there has not been time to re-flag the ships under the Red Ensign. Where we have done so, it has been crucial; where we have not, it has not been crucial.
I hoped that I had answered the second part of the noble Lord's Question when I said that the nationality of crews is a matter for the ships' owners. In other words, they are not required to have at minimum a British master.
Lord Redesdale: My Lords, is the Minister satisfied that the security of these ships is being taken seriously, considering that they will have to travel through the Suez Canal and past Yemen and that ships have previously been attacked off the coast of Yemen?
Lord Bach: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, will not expect me to go into details.
596
However, I can tell him that a number of important security measures are in place to protect chartered vessels, their crews and the cargo, including but not limited to, first, the careful routing of the ships, to which his question has relevance; naval shipping providing protection where deemed necessary; and embarkation of military protection parties. On all those ships, there are always on hoard UK military escorts.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, am I correct in my understanding of my noble friend's Answer; that it would theoretically be possible for these ships to he crewed and mastered by Iraqis? Surely that would not be sensible.
Lord Bach: My Lords, it is theoretically possible but I do not believe likely.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, does not the Red Ensign designation confer the entitlement to have armaments on deck and to man them, as was the case in 1939?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I must confess that I do not know the answer to the noble Lord's question relating to 1939, but I promise that I will find out and write to him. I understand that the equipment on the deck of these ships is not on display.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the noble Lord used the word "crucial". Under what circumstances would it not be crucial for these ships not to carry the Red Ensign?
Lord Bach: My Lords, there were a number of negatives in that excellent question. Perhaps it is best if I tell the noble Lord that the ships which have been re-flagged have been part of the amphibious task group sailing with ships of the Royal Navy and the Royal Fleet Auxiliary and staying on station. This is front-line shipping and that is the reason why those particular ships have been re-flagged.
Lord Greenway: My Lords, will any of the 40 or so ships which have been chartered on a commercial basis be affected by the recent decision of the Turkish parliament under which they may have to have their charters extended in order to move equipment from Turkey to the Arabian Gulf?
Lord Bach: My Lords, there are 58 chartered ships, of which a number are UK-chartered. I understand that the decision, or non-decision, of the Turkish parliament will have no effect.
Lord Vivian: My Lords, expanding on the security issues, does vetting of the crews of ships flying foreign national flags and the Red Ensign take place when they are carrying British military equipment to

597
the Gulf? What security measures are taken to protect those ships from terrorists posing as crew members?
Lord Bach: My Lords, I must be cautious in how I answer that question. It is not possible to carry out security checks on the crews of commercial vessels chartered by the Ministry of Defence due to a number of circumstances. They include, primarily, the short-notice nature of the Ministry of Defence charter requirements; the rapid turnover of crew members; and non-residency in the United Kingdom. Of course it would be desirable to do so, but in the real world it just is not practicable.
As regards security measures, I repeat what I said to the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale. Security measures are in place, some of which I referred to in my answer to the noble Lord and others I would rather not go into.
Lord Peston: My Lords, will my noble friend enlighten me on one matter? I thought that a large part of the world's merchant fleet was not flagged to the Red Ensign as a tax dodge. Are my noble friend and Her Majesty's Government totally happy that our troops will be carried into a theatre of war by companies trying to avoid taxation in this country?
Lord Bach: My Lords, as a Defence Minister I am not normally asked questions about tax dodges. I am as confident as I possibly can be so far as concerns the noble Lord's question.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the reciprocal part of the last question is: is the Minister satisfied with the way in which the British flagged fleet has diminished over the past 15 years, and are the Government going to do something to reverse the position?
Lord Bach: My Lords, that is a very wide question. But I am delighted to say—as I am answering for the Government, as he would remind me if I failed to answer—that there has been a steady increase in United Kingdom registered shipping: around 50 per cent over the past two years. That figure contrasts well with that for the preceding period.

Markets
2.44 p.m.
Lord Sheldonasked Her Majesty's Government:
In view of the speech by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the Social Market Foundation on 3rd February, what are those areas where they consider markets cannot deliver the long-term returns required.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government's central objective is to create a more prosperous Britain, with opportunity and security for all. In many areas, private firms operating in well-functioning markets can help to achieve this objective, by efficiently providing high-quality goods and services to consumers. But for certain key public services, such as healthcare, schools and national defence, a range of market failures can make public provision a more efficient and equitable means of delivery.
Lord Sheldon: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. The speech was a remarkable personal comment on those areas of public policy where markets are not appropriate and where public action is required. I know that my noble friend will have read this most important speech. Will he comment on the implications of the speech in the light of the current debate on the future of the National Health Service?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I agree about the importance of the speech. I rather think that it will be referred to in economics textbooks and in studies of public policy for many years to come. As to the National Health Service, the Chancellor spent a considerable part of the speech describing the particular characteristics of the National Health Service which make public provision necessary: for example, the difficulty of specifying contracts, the fact that there are local monopolies in various specialisms in health, and in particular that there is very poor—too poor—consumer information. But at the same time, it is government policy to devolve responsibility for healthcare matters to the front-line organisations.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, is not one of the most attractive aspects of the party opposite its belief in universal provision free at the point of use? Is it not a sad end of that romantic dream that now the Government intend to charge people for public services as well as taxing them? Does the Minister appreciate the scale of public disquiet about what that means—as in these findings: 37 per cent of people think that most people will end up paying for private schools; 56 per cent think the same about private healthcare; 59 per cent say that about private welfare insurance; and 66 per cent say that most people will end up paying for private pensions?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Lord thinks it more important to report to the House on opinion research findings than to read the speech. Had he read the speech, he would have realised that the principle of public service provision free at the point of delivery is exactly the thrust of the Chancellor's argument about healthcare. I referred also to schools and to national defence. I should have to know the provenance of the noble Lord's figures relating to public opinion in order to comment on them. As a market researcher, I am sorry to say that far too many dubious polls have been published in the past few years and months.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I am sure that the researcher for the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, will have read the speech—as will my noble friend; I know how assiduous he is. Perhaps I may draw my noble friend's attention to a particular point in the speech. My right honourable friend the Chancellor said:
"in those areas where markets failures are chronic, I am suggesting that we step up our efforts to pioneer more decentralised systems of public service delivery".
Can my noble friend tell the House what exactly he had in mind?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have already volunteered an answer to that question in referring to the National Health Service and to the Chancellor's statement that in the NHS we would be devolving responsibility to front-line health organisations. The Secretary of State for Health is very keen on that. If that is allied to what the Department of Health has been doing in improving and establishing inspection facilities, it will be seen that the organisation of the National Health Service is very much in line with what the Chancellor is describing.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, what philosophical distinction does the Minister draw between, on the one hand, charging for prescriptions and charging for road use in London, and not charging for other public services?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, prescription charging goes back a very long way and has not been challenged by governments of either political persuasion for more than 50 years. That is an accepted variation on the principle of free delivery at point of use. As for congestion charging, because of the growth of traffic, it is no longer acceptable to say that all roads shall be available to all types of traffic at all times without some sort of charge. The introduction of the congestion charge in London is a good example of how that is both necessary and correctable.
Lord Newby: My Lords, in the speech, the Chancellor says that achieving the Government's economic objectives,
"demands the courage to push forward with all the radical long term reforms necessary to enhance productivity".
Given the Government's extremely patchy record on productivity, what courageous measures did the Chancellor have in mind?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not accept that the record is patchy unless the noble Lord, Lord Newby, means by patchy that he cannot claim that it is a bad record. I suspect that that is the case, because, as he very well knows, there have been significant improvements in productivity during the lifetime of the Government.
Lord Naseby: My Lords, although the Minister derides the view of my noble friend Lord Saatchi on opinion polls, is not the Chancellor's speech an opinion in itself? Does the Minister recognise that
600
there really has not been any progress on the health service in the last seven years? Waiting lists are as long as they have ever been—probably longer. If there is to be devolved power to the front line—to the GPs, in other words does—that mean we can hope to have fundholding back again?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not know what the noble Lord heard of what I said about opinion polls. As a survey researcher myself, I am not one to criticise opinion polls as such. However, I am one to criticise bad opinion polls, and I would need to know more about the sources of the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, to comment on them. As for the point about delivery in the health service, the noble Lord, Lord Naseby, is plain wrong. Since 1997, we have 10,000 more doctors, 30,000 more nurses and 750,000 elective admissions—that is, 16 per cent—and waiting lists are down by 116,000.

European Working Time Directive
2.52 p.m.
Lord Bradshawasked Her Majesty's Government:
Why they intend to implement the European Working Time Directive on the railways before they implement it on the roads.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, the Government are required to implement the Horizontal Amending Directive which extends the Working Time Directive to all railway workers or non-mobile workers and some road transport workers by 1st August 2003. However, drivers subject to EU drivers' hours rules are subject to a more specific working time directive called the Road Transport Directive, which was adopted only in March 2002 and is required to be implemented by March 2005.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that between now and the time of implementation, it will be quite impossible to recruit, for example, sufficient train drivers and signal engineers to make up for the extra employees who will be required to implement the directive? Is it necessary to implement the directive so soon? Why does the road transport industry have a derogation until 2006 or 2009, depending on the size of vehicle? Will the directive be implemented by other European countries or will we, once again, be zealots for introduction while other people please themselves?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I hope I made it clear in my Answer that we have no option about this. It is a piece of a directive that we have to implement by 1st August 2003. It is as simple as that.
In 1998, the railway sector signed the railway social partner agreement, which was incorporated in the Horizontal Amending Directive in 2000. So the

601
railway sector has had five years in which to implement this regulation. The idea that it has suddenly been sprung on the sector is misleading. Five years is a perfectly reasonable amount of time, and the sector has had three years since it knew the final date. There were no objections to the railway sector's inclusion in the Horizontal Amending Directive, along with its timetable for implementation, during the course of negotiations which came to a conclusion on 1st August 2000.
As with most legislation coming out of Brussels, there has been plenty of time to take notice of it, deal with the situation and even recruit people. There is no derogation on the Road Transport Directive, which was adopted only in March 2002 and is required to be implemented by March 2005.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, my noble friend will he aware that the regulations from his department to implement the directive into national law were published only this winter. I declare an interest as chairman of the Rail Freight Group, but this applies to all rail passengers or freight. Until those details were published, it was not possible to get into the nitty-gritty of how many new drivers and signalmen were required. So in fact the Minister is allowing only six months for training people, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, said, would take several years. Has the Minister told his colleagues in the Department for Transport? How many trains will have to be cancelled because of the shortage of drivers from 1st August?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, if I may say so, the noble Lord is being somewhat naïve. The industry had notice of the legislation, which is quite clear. All that was required was the detailed regulations to implement it. I cannot see that it is that difficult, over this period of time, to take action to deal with the situation. Very precise derogations apply in terms of certain categories such as night work limits, which are there to help the industry.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, leaving aside the railways, could one of the reasons that the Government are not implementing the directive on the roads at this time be that it is part of the wider agenda of waiting for the second regulation on road transport, which is currently before Ministers at the Council of Europe? That would impose heavy penalties on the road haulage industry. Why did the Government oppose that regulation at the beginning but have now changed their mind?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the Road Transport Directive was adopted in March 2002 and is required to he implemented in March 2005. We will implement it by that date. I cannot believe that the noble Baroness is suggesting that we should bring it forward so that we are, as she would say, gold-plating this and putting our industry at a disadvantage compared with the industry in the rest of Europe.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, although I agree with my noble friend that it is hardly zealotry to want
602
to implement these measures for road and rail—after all, it is 13 years since the original Working Time Directive—it was nevertheless always intended that road and rail directives should, for obvious level playing field reasons, be implemented simultaneously. Is my noble friend aware that this two-year gap—or discrimination as the rail industry will argue—opens up the possibility of legal intervention by the Commission, which would have every chance of success?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am not certain that that was ever intended. There are three situations here—the Working Time Directive, the Horizontal Amending Directive and the final three bits of directives which apply to the specific areas of aviation, seafaring and road transport. It is not true that the Road Transport Directive is the only bit of legislation controlling drivers' hours. The tachograph rules limit driving hours for these drivers to a total of 90 hours per fortnight. So regulations already cover road transport to some extent. There is also a question about how Schedule 14 would apply to the situation, with some dispute as to the legal meaning.

Climate Change Levy
3 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Croyasked Her Majesty's Government:
For how long they intend to retain the climate change levy.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the climate change levy was introduced in April 2001 as an important part of the Government's climate change programme. The levy package is expected to deliver emissions savings of at least 5 million tonnes of carbon a year by 2010. The Government therefore have no plans to end the levy. Decisions about its rate and scope are, of course, subject to review on a Budget by Budget basis.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. As the levy was not introduced as a permanent fiscal feature and has now been operating as a tax for nearly a year, are there any plans for the period after that prescribed by the Kyoto Protocol, which was the original cause of the measure?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Kyoto Protocol has been updated and there are now much longer-term targets for tackling climate change. The energy White Paper published last week talks about dealing with climate change over 50 years. Our policies have to be adapted to deal with those problems.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, in view of the emphasis that last week's energy White Paper places on improving energy efficiency—with which I am sure that the

603
House fully agrees—will the Government ensure that all the proceeds of the climate change levy are devoted to that purpose?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, of course the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, is right that a considerable part of the White Paper is concerned with energy efficiency. We look forward to the resolution of the outstanding issues with emissions trading. We are talking about energy efficiency not just in buildings, but also, through European regulation, in fridges, personal computers and so on. We are looking forward to lower carbon fuels in transport.
There are no proceeds for the Government from the climate change levy. It is revenue-neutral as far as business is concerned.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, will the Minister kindly tell the House how much carbon dioxide is not being emitted into the atmosphere, let us say up until the end of the last year for which records were kept? He gave us the estimated figure at the start of the scheme, but he has not given us the actual figure.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, emissions in 1997 were 155 million tonnes of carbon. Taking that as a baseline, by 2020, under the business as usual position there would be 135 million tonnes of carbon. Adding in the target of reducing that by 15 million to 25 million tonnes by 2020 leaves a figure of 110 million to 120 million tonnes, which is equivalent to between 11 and 19 per cent.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, have not carbon emissions from power generation been increasing over the past two years?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I have no reason to doubt the noble Lord's figures.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, with respect, the noble Lord did not answer my question. I asked what the actual reduction had been until the present time.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, tells me that it is quite a lot. I am sure that that is right, but I shall have to write to the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, on that point.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, the purpose of my question was to ask whether the total proceeds of the climate change levy should be devoted to improving energy efficiency. The Minister said that the levy was tax-neutral. That is not the point. I feel it is wrong for it to be used for other purposes. We should be concentrating the whole of the proceeds on energy efficiency.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there are no proceeds for the Government. We are talking about approximately £900 million a year. That money is revenue forgone, because we have a decrease in employers' national insurance contributions of 0.3 per cent. No
604
money is available to the Government to spend on energy efficiency. The energy White Paper makes it clear that we are providing substantial increases in capital grants and research and development expenditure specifically for renewables. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, is well aware that we are also encouraging energy efficiency in the ways that I have described.

Electricity (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill
3.6 p.m.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Bill marks a practical response from the Government to a difficult situation with which we have been confronted. The legislation has been brought forward specifically to deal with the problems faced by British Energy, the country's only private sector nuclear electricity generator.
Noble Lords will recall that my noble friend Lord McIntosh made a Statement to the House on 28th November about the company. The House will therefore already be aware of the background to the current situation. At the end of the summer last year, British Energy found itself in serious financial difficulty and was on the point of running out of cash entirely. That could have triggered a sudden and unplanned insolvency that would, in the view of the Government and the regulatory authorities, have posed a considerable risk to nuclear safety and the security of electricity supply. Support was therefore needed to ensure that stations could continue to operate safely and generate electricity.
With nuclear safety and security of supply in mind, the Government decided to extend a loan facility to the company, thereby allowing the breathing space to investigate the possibilities of a restructuring package. The Government's key priorities have been and continue to be nuclear safety and security of supply. However, as we go forward it is also important to consider how existing nuclear liabilities can be dealt with safely, effectively and at least cost to the taxpayer.
The Bill allows the Government to play their part in ensuring that, going forward, these objectives continue to be met, whether or not the restructuring succeeds. Nuclear power stations will continue to run, nuclear liabilities will be dealt with safely and effectively and customers' lights will stay on.
The Government have responded in a responsible way to the specific issues faced by British Energy. Our actions have been a sensible and practical response to these events. The same is true of the Bill.
I am aware that many noble Lords have a keen interest in the wider debate on future energy policy. Last week we published the energy White Paper. Noble Lords will have an opportunity to debate some of the issues raised in the White Paper in greater detail in the future.

605
I know that in particular many noble Lords will have strong views, one way or the other, on what role nuclear power should take in the longer-term energy mix. However, the Government's response to the problems at British Energy is quite separate from the question of new nuclear build.
The Government's actions in relation to British Energy are about dealing with the problems of a particular company, not about the future role of nuclear power. British Energy's nuclear power stations already exist. The nuclear liabilities associated with those stations already exist. I hope that all noble Lords will be able to agree on the importance of dealing safely and effectively with these stations and their liabilities, whatever their views on the desirability of new nuclear build.
The Bill contains the flexibility to allow the Government to meet their objectives whether the company succeeds in restructuring or, alternatively, fails and is put into administration.
The Government have agreed to support the restructuring package put forward by the company. This package, which is aimed at bringing the company back to financial viability within the private sector, contains a number of elements, all of which will need to be satisfied if the restructuring is to succeed.
The company had a number of weaknesses. It suffered a shortfall in cash, heavy indebtedness, excessive exposure to wholesale electricity prices, onerous contracts and significant historic liabilities. It is attempting to address those weaknesses through its restructuring plan.
In common with standard commercial practice for a company in difficulty, this plan involves a mixture of asset sales and a reduction in both debt and costs more generally. The company is in the process of selling its North American assets. The sale of its stake in Bruce Power, in Canada, was completed on 14th February, and the sale of its stake in Amergen is currently proceeding. The company is negotiating improved terms with its financial stakeholders—banks, bondholders and other major creditors. BNFL has indicated agreement in principle to new contracts at reduced prices. In this way, the company has sought to address and mitigate areas of weakness in its operation.
The restructuring package also contained a reorganisation of the way in which the company would handle its nuclear liabilities—including dealing with spent fuel and station decommissioning—going forward. The company already makes annual payments to the Nuclear Decommissioning Fund. Once the restructuring deal is implemented, it will also begin to contribute to a new ring-fenced Nuclear Liabilities Fund. The company will begin by issuing £275 million of new bonds for the fund, and from then on every year the company will contribute 65 per cent of available cash to the fund. That ensures that the more successful the company, the more it will contribute to the cost of discharging its nuclear liabilities.
606
As noble Lords will be aware, the Government have recognised that if the restructuring is to work, it will need to contribute significantly to the company's historic nuclear fuel liabilities, currently managed by BNFL. The Government have also agreed to stand as guarantor behind future liabilities incurred by the company.
The Government are prepared to provide financial support for nuclear liabilities in this way because they recognise that, if the company failed. the Government would ultimately have to take responsibility for nuclear liabilities anyway given their responsibilities for nuclear safety and the environment. The restructuring deal represents a route by which British Energy's nuclear stations can contribute to these liabilities while avoiding the additional costs associated with administration.
In order for the Government fully to play their part in this deal, they will need to be able to pay for the existing contracts for dealing with spent fuel, while at the same time standing guarantee for the costs of discharging the company's liabilities in the future. The current ceiling on expenditure that can be incurred on nuclear liabilities under Schedule 12 of the Electricity Act 1989 prevents us being able to do that. The existing limit of £1 billion, extendable to £2.5 billion, does not give us the flexibility we need to be able to meet our side of the bargain. Therefore, Clause 3 of the Bill repeals that ceiling.
The Government have agreed to stand guarantee to the rest of BE's nuclear liabilities in the event that the company, through its new Nuclear Liabilities Fund mechanism, cannot meet the costs. Although these liabilities are unavoidable and known, the final cost of dealing with them is subject to considerable uncertainty. The Government have recognised that they must accept ultimate financial responsibility for these liabilities. It would not be consistent with that to apply a fixed financial ceiling to these costs. Noble Lords will therefore understand that the removal of the existing limit is an honest recognition of the fact that, ultimately, it is the Government who must take responsibility for ensuring that nuclear liabilities are dealt with safely and effectively.
The Bill also contains a provision to disregard any undertaking to make a grant under Schedule 12 for tax purposes. Without that provision, the Government's signing of a commitment to provide support for nuclear liabilities could in itself lead to a massive one-off tax bill for the company. Clearly, it would be illogical for the Government to give a financial commitment that would cause such an enormous fiscal liability for the company—one that might tip it into insolvency. Therefore, Clause 4 is a sensible provision to allow that financial support to be disregarded for tax purposes.
The provisions included in Clauses 3 and 4 allow the Government effectively to meet their responsibilities for nuclear liabilities if a restructuring goes ahead. However, the Government must also be fully prepared to ensure the continued safe operation of the nuclear power stations if the restructuring deal fails and British Energy is put into administration.

607
It is essential that the Government are prepared for the possibility of the company failing and going into administration. It is clearly important for British Energy's nuclear stations to be in safe and responsible hands. So, if the company goes into administration, the Government intend to stand ready to acquire the stations—either directly acquiring the assets, or acquiring the operating companies. Of course, that would not be necessary if an appropriate private sector purchaser came along to acquire the nuclear business from the administrator. However, the Government believe that that is most unlikely to happen because of the specific nature of the business—for example, the significant nuclear liabilities associated with the stations—and the difficulty of predicting the financial consequences of operational risk. As we do not believe a private sector purchaser is likely, the Government want to be ready to act as purchaser of last resort.
However, the Government are currently prevented buying shares in privatised electricity companies under Section 74 of the Electricity Act 1989. This provision was originally put in place to give confidence that the privatisation process would be seen through and not quickly reversed. However, it has no real relevance in today's electricity industry, over a decade after the initial restructuring and privatisation. Its existence, however, would prevent the Government being able to buy the BE operating companies in administration. Clause 2 therefore seeks to repeal that provision. I should like to make it clear to noble Lords that there is no hidden agenda to renationalise the company. We would have no objection to a private sector buyer purchasing the companies—but, as I have explained, we simply do not expect one to come forward. We therefore need to be ready to act as purchaser of last resort.
Clause 1 gives the Government explicit parliamentary authority to provide financial assistance to a BE company. The rescue aid which has been extended to British Energy is currently authorised under the Appropriation Act. However, under the concordat with the Public Accounts Committee which has been in place since 1932, it is usual that any significant or long-term expenditure should have additional specific statutory authority. Clause 1 provides that authority. Clause 1 also gives the Government explicit authority to incur expenditure on acquiring BE operating companies or assets. This authority would extend to cover any acquisition which took place in the event of administration.
It is perhaps worth clarifying for noble Lords that the expenditure authorised under Clause 1 will not, as a matter of policy, be used to deal with support for long-term nuclear liabilities. I have already referred to Schedule 12 to the Electricity Act, which contains a specific power to incur expenditure on nuclear liabilities. It is standard government policy to use specific spending powers where they exist rather than general ones. Therefore. expenditure on BE's nuclear liabilities will be made under Schedule 12 to the Electricity Act rather than Clause 1 of this Bill.
608
Finally, I should like to touch on recent developments since the restructuring deal was first announced to the House on 28th November. As announced on 14th February, the company's creditors have agreed to a binding standstill, and agreed in principle to a significant write-down in the value of what they are owed. The company has agreed and now completed the sale of its interest in Bruce Power, and has also made progress on the implementation of its new trading strategy. These developments mark a significant step forward for the company in implementing its restructuring deal.
However, that is by no means the end of the story. Much still needs to be done if the restructuring deal is to succeed. If it does not, the Government will need to be able to deal with the consequences of administration. So the Government cannot afford to be complacent. We need to continue to be ready for either eventuality—restructuring or administration—and the same applies to the Bill.
I hope that I have helped noble Lords to understand the broader framework and background to this legislation. I also hope that noble Lords will understand that what we are seeking to achieve with this Bill is the necessary flexibility so that the Government are able to operate effectively in the event of any of the possible outcomes of the current BE situation. This is a small and practical Bill which will allow the Government to meet their core commitments of guaranteeing nuclear safety, ensuring security of supply and dealing safely and effectively with nuclear liabilities in a variety of scenarios. I commend it to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Sainsbury of Turville.)
3.19 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, what a pretty pass the proudly named British Energy—the flagship of the United Kingdom electricity industry—has come to. The blame lies fairly and squarely, in more or less equal measure, on all the parties involved. It lies on British Energy itself, for a certain amount of mismanagement. It also lies on BNFL, the Government's own key company, which, in the words of my honourable friend the Member for Reigate, failed to drag British Energy "off the rocks" where it had previously deposited it. The blame also lies on the operation of NETA—the new electricity trading arrangement—which has resulted in the target reduction in wholesale electricity prices of 10 per cent being overshot and a lowering of prices by a massive 40 per cent.
Last, but not least, in this catalogue of those responsible for the present predicament of British Energy must he Her Majesty's Government. They confiscated £2.1 billion of the electricity industry's operating funds in the so-called "windfall tax". Then, in 2000, they imposed a business rates regime which

609
unfairly discriminated against nuclear power stations. Finally, they introduced the so-called climate change levy on the nuclear industry, which does not produce greenhouse gases or climate change problems or other environmental problems and generates its electricity from carbon-free sources, but nevertheless has to pay the levy as if it does. But, unlike other electricity producers, it also has to bear the cost of ultimate decommissioning. That is truly a double whammy. What we now have is the Government coming back and sanctimoniously pretending that they are riding to the rescue with public funds of a company they, and their own BNFL, played a major part in putting into trouble in the first place.
I accept that further recrimination is pointless, and I shall move on to the Government's solution as embodied in the Bill. For, with the situation that faces us, in the words of the late King Edward VIII when he was still Prince of Wales, "something must be done". The question is not only whether this Bill is the right way of resolving the problem but whether, in the light of the events since the Bill was introduced in another place, the Government should not go back to square one and start all over again. When the Bill was introduced, there was no certainty that a restructuring plan could be produced acceptable to shareholders and creditors alike.
Reports in the press and a written government statement dated 24th February indicate that a viable restructuring plan has been accepted—the Minister told us that too—resulting in shareholders, institutions and employees losing a lot of money and with banks and substantial creditors accepting pie in the sky in the form of £275 million of equity and deferred bonds in lieu of payment of £1.3 billion debts due to them. I calculate that to be under 5p in the pound—but my arithmetic is not so good, so it is up to the Minister to correct me if I am wrong on that—not in cash but in shares and bonds which may or may not be worth something in the future, if the company can get out of its present mess.
On 14th February, the company announced that it was considering what was to happen to the existing shareholders and bondholders. Perhaps when the Minister replies he will tell us what conclusion has been reached on that. The company has to find some optimistic investors willing to put up a further £275 million to fund decommissioning costs. The optimism is needed after seeing what has happened to the first lot of investors. As part of the restructuring plan, British Energy is selling its Canadian assets valued at £600 million at the knock-down price of £270 million, as the Minister told us.
According to my honourable friend Mr Blunt, the Secretary of State told another place in her Statement that,
"whatever happens, nuclear power stations will continue to generate electricity and will continue to employ staff".—[Official Report, Commons, 27/1/03; col. 595.]
Well, of course they would.
610
British Energy is the only private sector nuclear generator and the country's largest single electricity generator and supplies about 22 per cent of our electricity requirements. The Minister in another place, Mr Wilson, said:
"It is essential, first, to guarantee nuclear safety and, secondly. to maintain the security of electricity supplies".—[Official Report, Commons, 27/1/03; col. 583.]
At Second Reading in another place, my honourable friend Mr Blunt made it clear that,
"There never has been any danger to security of supply".—[Official Report, Commons, 27/1/03; col. 595.].
Furthermore, my honourable friend in the same debate, at col. 592 of Commons Hansard, specifically referred to,
"those of us who believe that nuclear power, with its costs and benefits understood, deserves its chance to compete fairly for Britain's future electricity generating capacity".
Despite the fact that an acceptable restructuring scheme has been achieved, the Government are still pressing ahead with the Bill in its present form allowing for the two alternatives of there being a scheme or there being no scheme. I ask, in all seriousness, why not have a fresh, tidy Bill, devoid of hypothetical circumstances and extraneous matter now that the emergency which prompted the Government's hastily drafted legislation has more or less passed. Why are we not considering a new Bill covering the situation as it now exists, rather than what it might have been without the restructuring scheme?
The answer lies in the Government's hidden agenda. The problems that have overtaken British Energy—problems which the Government helped to cause, as I explained previously—give the Government the opportunity to slip that hidden agenda onto the statute book. Their plan is the back-door renationalisation of the electricity industry.
The Electricity Act 1989 prevented the Government from acquiring shares in certain electricity companies. The Minister, Mr Wilson, admitted to another place:
"It is true that repealing that provision could, in theory, permit the Government to acquire shares in certain other electricity companies where we cannot currently do so, but I stress that we have no intention of doing so".—[Official Report, Commons, 27/1/03; col. 589.]
Well, of course, I naturally accept the Minister's word that at 4.50 in the afternoon of 27th January 2003 the Government had no such intention, but with a Government that make more U-turns than a London taxi, I have to ask why in that case the provision should be in the Bill.
In his speech to another place at Second Reading, the Minister constantly referred to British Energy, but the detail of the Bill shows that wider, limitless powers of acquisition are sought. Why? The Bill could be strictly confined to dealing with and solving the British Energy problem because of the clear ruling of Mr Speaker that, since the Bill is simply an enabling measure, it is not hybrid, with all the procedural problems that that would entail. That being so, I cannot see any reason why the Bill should not be confined to British Energy and its problems.

611
I shall seek further advice from the Bill Office on that particular point in view of the Speaker's ruling, but in any case I should like to give the Minister advance notice that it will he my intention at a later stage to ensure that the Bill is limited to its intended purposes and not used as a vehicle to renationalise the industry at the command of the Government's trade union paymasters. Perhaps the Government think that we did not notice the unanimous resolution at the TUC conference at Blackpool, calling for British Energy to be renationalised and the demand by John Edmonds, the leader of the GM B union, for what he called a "Railtrack style solution". That is the thin edge of the wedge, if ever I saw one.
Another problem created by the Bill is the fact that the Government are seeking a blank cheque for the amount they may spend on assisting British Energy and, indeed, the rest of the nuclear power industry. At present, Schedule 12 to the 1989 Act imposes a limit on payments for nuclear liabilities of not more than,
"£1,000 million or such greater sum, not exceeding £2,500 million, as the Secretary of State may by order specify".
How much more than £2.5 billion does the Government think they might want, or need, to spend?
On 5th September, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry told BBC News that,
"there is no question at all of taxpayers writing a blank cheque to British Energy and its shareholders".
Well, what is removing the spending limits imposed by the 1989 Act but a blank cheque and an invitation to a spendthrift Government to help themselves, unhindered, to taxpayers' money with no control by Parliament? I happen to believe that a limit of between £1 and £2.5 billion, which was the discretion that the former Conservative government wisely imposed, is more than enough money for the present Government to spend without coming hack to Parliament to make out a case for wanting more.
I reject the Minister's lame explanation to another place, at col. 587 of Commons Hansard, that the Government needed what he called,
"flexibility to respond to eventualities".
I reject his denial, as I have already rejected the Secretary of State's denial, that the Government are not seeking a blank cheque. I agree with the Minister that, as he told the other place:
"Changes to decommissioning plans or station operation that would materially increase the nuclear liabilities would need to be authorised by the Government in advance".—[Official Report, Commons, 27/1/03; col. 587.]
The fact is that the so-called ring-fence decommissioning fund has been seriously eroded by the unwise investment of those funds on the stock market. The fund has gone down from £411 million last April to about £300 million today.
Parliament's job is to control the excesses of the Executive. If it wants more money than Parliament specifically grants, then it has to come hack and explain itself. That is especially so with the limit removed and the Government's plans in the Bill for back-door renationalisation. The Government could find a pretext to buy up at least bits of other generating
612
companies without coming to Parliament for the funds to do so. It will not surprise the Minister that we intend to oppose the removal of the limitations very properly imposed by Schedule 12 of the 1989 Act. We shall, however, propose substantially to increase those limits but to require the expenditure over and above the new limit to be subject to a positive resolution of both Houses.
Clause 2(3) will empower the Secretary of State to repeal any of the provisions of the important Part 2, and to make what are described as consequential amendments to,
"the Electricity Act 1989 or any other Act".
As usual with the Government, it is proposed that the power he exercised by statutory instrument and subject to the negative resolution procedure, not by both Houses of Parliament but merely by either House. That is a novel ploy even for this control-freak Government, and it is simply not acceptable.
First, if primary legislation is going to be amended by secondary legislation, it is essential that it should actually be discussed by Parliament and not slipped in under the wire just as Parliament is adjourning. Secondly, both Houses must be involved in amending the legislation. The matter must not simply be left to another place, as I suspect that the Government will attempt to do. The Government's current overwhelming, majority there has reduced its function to a mere rubber stamp. Those provisions will be subject to an amendment that we shall table.
While we are discussing that matter, I want to question the power that allows the Government to amend "any other Act". Precisely what other Acts do the Government have in mind—any other Act on the statute book, or any other Act dealing with the electricity industry? The Explanatory Notes claim that the provision is extremely,
"narrow and would permit … the deletion of cross references in other Acts",
but that is not what the Bill says. It says "any other Act", without imposing any restriction whatever.
I look to the Government to introduce an amendment specifically limiting the words to the situation that they say that they wish to cover, with absolutely no ambiguity. I do not expect to hear the Government say, as they usually do, that that would be unnecessary. We feel that it is necessary. I urge the Government and the Minister not to put themselves and this House through the same argument about an over-wide phrase that we have had on previous occasions.
The Bill was originally described as an enabling Act intended to deal with a unique situation. There seems to be no justification for the powers that the Government are taking under the Bill to continue indefinitely without further parliamentary scrutiny. We shall therefore propose a sunset clause.

613
The Government themselves have conceded that the principle applies to the Electricity Act 1989. In the Explanatory Notes to the Bill, they refer to the provisions of the 1989 Act as,
"in the main, long since spent".
If after x years it is felt that the powers of the Bill are still needed, Parliament can follow the usual procedure of reviewing them from time to time.
This hastily drafted Bill exposes the taxpayer to unlimited and uncosted liabilities and seeks to give the Government wholly disproportionate powers to intervene further and expend unlimited amounts of taxpayers' funds in the entire electricity market. We on these Benches agree that some legislation is necessary. In view of the fact that the Government have been overtaken by events, namely the approval of the restructuring plan, they should really reconsider and reshape the whole Bill. However, failing that sensible step, we will seek to amend it by removing the more unacceptable, unnecessary and unconstitutional provisions that it contains.
3.33 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, when the Bill was considered in another place, the energy White Paper had not been published. Now it has been. Unfortunately, it leaves open the longer-term future of nuclear power. It would have been much easier for us to consider the Bill's implications if we had known whether nuclear power was likely to have a future in the energy policy of this country. If it has a future, we would have to regard the Bill as a stepping stone to the further development of nuclear power. If it has no future, the Bill would be the first step in the ultimate decommissioning of nuclear power. Although the Minister was quite right in saying that its specific proposals have no reference to the longer-term policy, it is nevertheless always important in such matters to consider future implications. We are left in a degree of uncertainty.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, referred to the problems that have led to the present difficulties. As she rightly stated, many of them have been beyond the compass of the company. For instance, the impact of NETA and the wholesale prices created something of a crisis in the generation of electricity, affecting not only British Energy but a number of other companies. Other problems include: the expensive BNFL contract for treating spent fuels, which is now under renegotiation; the somewhat illogical application of the climate change levy to nuclear power; and the surprising decision to charge a higher business rate on nuclear generators, which again discriminates against companies involved in nuclear power.
Finally, there was the question of the extent to which the company itself made commercial misjudgments. The big misjudgment was not to go for vertical integration. It did not make sure that it could get the benefit of the higher proceeds from retail prices for electricity compared with the wholesale price. My understanding of the Government's philosophy on
614
electricity generation is that they would have preferred to see a distinction between the generation of electricity as such, the distribution of electricity through the distribution networks and the supply of electricity. In fact, the only way in which electricity companies can now survive is through vertically integrating—in other words, taking advantage of the difference between the wholesale and retail prices.
That is the mistake that British Energy made, by concentrating on the generation of electricity and not moving downstream. It is an interesting commentary on such affairs that the downstream operations of the oil companies are generally unremunerative, whereas the downstream operations of electricity companies are remunerative.
The major issue in the Bill is whether there should be a solvent restructuring or administration. The Government have left open the possibility of administration if solvent restructuring should not come about. So far, the steps towards solvent restructuring seem reasonably positive. The real issue that we should consider is the implications of either solution on the taxpayer. On that, we are not particularly helped by the Secretary of State, who said on 28th November that there was no real difference to the financial implications for the taxpayer, whichever solution was adopted.
We have to ponder that, as it seems that there are rather more risks with the solvent solution than with the administration solution. We do not know how the solvent solution might develop. In any event, the Government have to come in on the substantial requirement for decommissioning—they have already accepted that past decommissioning costs would be met—and on the question of how spent fuels are dealt with. Therefore, the Government would be substantially involved, whichever solution were proposed. The Government ought to be very clear about which solution they think more acceptable, bearing in mind that the Secretary of State has said that the impact on the taxpayer would be neutral, whichever way was taken. There is therefore the question of the uncertainties of one solution against another.
Along with the noble Baroness, I am concerned about the open-ended commitment under Clause 3, which removes the ceiling of £2.5 billion in government financial assistance for nuclear liabilities such as spent fuel and decommissioning. We ought to have some figure in mind. If the Government believe that £2.5 billion is not adequate, we ought to know what is.
To have that limit removed altogether appears to introduce substantial uncertainty into the expenditure of public funds. The Bill, limited as it is to British Energy, raises major issues about how future nuclear electricity companies, if there should be such, should be run. We must consider the role that government and the private sector should play. We are in an exceptional situation in which the problems of decommissioning, of dealing with spent fuels and of security—particularly in the present situation in the

615
world—raise special issues from which the Government cannot withdraw. We need an indication of how nuclear stations, if there are in future to be any, should he dealt with as regards the balance between the government and the private sector, what the roles of the two should he and whether there is a role for the private sector in this uncertain and difficult area. Perhaps in our further deliberations on the Bill we will have answers to those questions. Although the Bill relates to a specific issue, it raises much wider issues, which I hope we shall address in amendments that will be introduced during the Bill's subsequent stages.
3.41 p.m.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, not for the first time, I find myself in virtually 100 per cent agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, who I suspect knows more about energy than most other noble Lords. On the Front Bench, my noble friend Lady Miller of Hendon made a powerful speech in which she drew attention to many of the shortcomings of the Bill. I shall endeavour not to repeat what my noble friend or the noble Lord said.
The Minister referred to the temptation to address the issues in the White Paper. Like the character in Oscar Wilde's play, I can usually resist everything except temptation. However, I shall do my best to resist that temptation and that of boring everyone with a re-run of the debate on 8th January, which was initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Tombs.
The Bill was presented in another place, as it was this afternoon by the noble Lord. Lord Sainsbury, as being necessary to deal with the crisis that faced British Energy last year, when it appeared to be running out of cash. If that was all it did, I daresay that we should he able to deal with it fairly briefly, and perhaps neither the hour that was indicated as the time for this debate nor the single day that has so far been set aside for the Committee stage would not be unreasonable. However, I warn the Minister that most of the Bill is not confined to dealing with British Energy's problems, as was starkly made clear right at the end of Third Reading in another place by the Minister for Energy and Construction. In response to a question from Mr Djanogly, he said:
"For reasons that the hon. Gentleman doubtless understands, no public Bill can deal with a single company. The measure is generic. but we are considering BE's circumstances".—[Official Report, Commons, 6/2/03; col. 511.]
My noble friend Lady Miller accepted the statement that because this was only an enabling Bill, it could not become hybrid, but I query that. I suspect that that rather cryptic reply from the Minister about the Bill being "generic" had more to do with avoiding hybridity than Ministers in another place have been prepared to admit. As Noel Coward might say, "Hang on to the word `generic'!". That is what the Bill is about.
Clause 1, as I understand it and as explained this afternoon by the Minister, is confined to British Energy. The rest of the Bill is of general application. In light of speeches made in another place and by noble Lords in this debate, I am sure that the Government
616
recognise that there is much unhappiness about these provisions in the Bill, particularly the so-called generic provisions. I shall return to that before I conclude. We shall certainly want to deal with that, as my noble friend said, in greater detail in Committee.
I have questions for the Minister about the rescue of British Energy. Ministers have made much of the company's misjudgment and mismanagement as being the primary causes of its financial difficulties. As my noble friend stressed, when will we hear from Ministers about the damaging impact that government policy has had on British Energy and other UK generators? The Minister used a somewhat strange phrase in his speech when he said that they were placing "excessive reliance" on wholesale prices of electricity. What on earth did he mean by that? He later hinted that perhaps British Energy would have done better to have acquired some retail distribution companies; I shall come to that in a moment. However, when he winds up, the Minister must explain what he meant by "excessive reliance". It was a very strange phrase indeed.
NETA has had very damaging effects right across the generating industry. Some firms have been driven out of business altogether and others have been able to keep going only because they were part of a larger group with substantial retail activities so that they can offset their generating losses by recouping them from retail customers.
It is worth noting that the Government and the regulator Ofgem boast about the 40 per cent reduction in wholesale electricity prices but that very little of that has percolated through to the electricity bills of retail customers. I suspect that most noble Lords will have recognised that. Through our electricity bills we are paying for the reimbursement of generators' losses because of the wholesale prices collapse. As the Minister made clear, British Energy has been unable to pass that on and it was therefore generating at a loss. It finds itself at the mercy of what the International Energy Agency described recently as,
"the recent turmoil in the UK energy market".
I accept that there has been over-capacity, partly as the result of the dash for gas. However, as I have said previously, to allow wholesale prices of electricity to fall below the short-term marginal costs of production is a recipe for disaster that is bound to end in tears. We are dealing with the result of those tears in this Bill.
I have several questions for the Minister, to which I hope he will respond. I return to my first question, which was: will the Government now openly acknowledge the damage that this collapse of wholesale electricity prices has had on the market?
Next, the Government require the acquiescence of the European Commission in agreeing the rescue package. It is perfectly true that it gave a very quick assent last autumn to the immediate bail out. However, I hope that I am right in believing that the rescue plans now have to go to the Commission for a more detailed assessment and approval.

617
On making inquiries, I have been told that that process is unlikely to be completed until next year—2004—and that, if it does come forward, approval may not be given for as long as 18 months. I should like the noble Lord to indicate whether he considers that to be a realistic and likely timetable. If it is, what happens if, in the interim, British Energy finds it impossible for whatever reason to deliver its restructuring plan? In his speech, the noble Lord said that we are not through the woods yet. But perhaps I may say that I believe he was a little less than frank about some of the problems that he faces as he hacks his way through this particular jungle.
That is not the only threat; others are looming. I am sure that the noble Lord's officials will have read about them in the weekend press. I quote from the Financial Times. Under the headline:
"British Energy plan triggers backlash",
the opening paragraph of the article states:
"American owners of three of Britain's biggest power stations are considering joining forces with other independent generators to mount a legal challenge to the government's proposed £2.1 bn rescue of British Energy".
That is the short-term threat. But the Financial Times article—I shall read it if I may because I believe that it is serious and disturbing—also quoted one company as saying:
"Since the government began subsidising British Energy, several generation projects have gone into administration, while a number of others are perilously close to insolvency.
Investors are beginning to view the political risks of the UK energy market as too high to justify continued investment, as evidenced by the significant withdrawal of US companies and investors from the UK market".
Are the Government confident that this is no more than simply empty bluster by the American generators, who appear as grumpy competitors who may have felt that they are being short-changed? Are the Government confident that these threats can be safely ignored, or are they for real? I should like to know the Government's view of that.
There are other implications of the Government's rescue. One result of it, as put to me the other day, is that the Government have now become a major stakeholder in the nuclear industry. The challenge to the industry is to see whether it can now deliver profitably with a realised wholesale price of electricity no more than £16 per megawatt hour. In other words, do the Government accept that this rescue of British Energy, and British Energy itself, are not to be seen merely as a temporary caretaking operation and BE a temporary caretaker company, or do the Government recognise that the company must have a long-term future, with nuclear generation accepted as being of fundamental importance in today's British electricity industry, whatever the future may be, as indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra?
If the Government's answer to that question is, "No, this is not a temporary caretaker solution; and, yes, nuclear energy has a major role to play over the next
618
few years or even decades", then one has to ask what other measures are needed if that is to be delivered. Perhaps I may suggest that there are at least three.
One is the need to strengthen the skills base. The noble Lord will remember that I raised that point in response to the Statement on the White Paper. But why have the Government given such a negative response to the proposal for the creation of a special skills council for the nuclear industry? Is it because at this point they are thinking big and that the nuclear industry, with only 135,000 skilled employees, is too small to warrant a separate special skills council?
The noble Lord will remember that, in answer to my question after the Statement, he said that all that would be dealt with by the skills council. But why, then, is there no special skills council for this industry? It is not merely a question of skills for nuclear new build; clearly that is not the case. It is the case of having the skills necessary to run the existing industry. What does,
"to keep the nuclear option open",
mean if there are not the skilled people to make that a reality? Therefore, I should like to know more about that.
Secondly, why is nothing being done to strengthen the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate—the nuclear regulator? Is that not essential if the rescue of British Energy is intended to help to keep the nuclear option open? Such strengthening will certainly be essential if there is to be a prospect of new nuclear build. However, we are not debating that today. But what about the process of the safe decommissioning of existing nuclear power stations? I am told that the N II does not have enough people even to do that job properly, and that is causing considerable anxiety in the industry. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord will be able to answer my point about the inspectorate.
Thirdly, I come to the question of nuclear waste. When will the Government move forward on the institutions and procedures leading to the safe disposal of nuclear waste? The Minister had much to say—perfectly properly because it is in the Bill—about the question of nuclear liabilities. Much of that is concerned with the legacy of waste. The new deal between British Energy and BNFL is certainly welcome, but is it more than simply a holding operation? Is it not time that the Government began to grasp the nettle and recognise that the safe disposal of waste is a high priority?
All those questions arise directly from Clause I of the Bill, and they deserve answers. However, I now turn briefly to Clause 2. As I said a few moments ago, the rest of the Bill goes far wider than the woes of British Energy.
I want to mention one matter which the noble Lord dealt with at some length in his speech—that is, the repeal of the provision of the 1989 Act banning the Government from buying shares in electricity companies. Although the Minister said that there is no present intention to invoke subsection (1), it is there in the Bill: unlimited in scope; unlimited in time; and

619
unlimited in amount. I am afraid I do not regard that as in the least acceptable, and I do not think that this House should regard it as acceptable.
Paragraph 31 of the Explanatory Notes seeks to be reassuring. It states:
"It allows the Secretary of State to act like any other legal person in being able to acquire shares in a normal commercial (voluntary) transaction".
I ask the House to consider the word "voluntary". In this context, is that not just a weasel word? It is entirely possible to envisage circumstances where government action or inaction of the kind that we have seen bring British Energy low over the past couple of years will put a company—not necessarily British Energy; perhaps another generator—into serious difficulties. Ministers can then come along posing as rescuers, wringing their hands and saying that they did not want to do that, but the company may well feel that an offer to buy its shares is one that it has no option but to go along with.
For the company and the shareholders that is not a voluntary sale but a forced sale. That is one of the consequences of the repeal of this provision of the 1989 Act. It might be the salvation of the company concerned, but I suspect that there might be a smile on the face of the tiger on the Front Bench opposite.
I believe that this House could reasonably insist on amendments of the kind outlined by my noble friend Lady Miller. To acquire a new electricity company which it does not own at present should not be dealt with as a by-product of this British Energy rescue Bill but in separate primary legislation aimed at that purpose. At present, as the Bill is drawn that would not be required. The Government could rely on this clause and buy whoever they like.
Surely, the question of the repeal of other parts of the 1989 Act by resolution, by order made under the Bill, must be subject to an affirmative order in both Houses as recommended—I shall not weary the House with this—by the scrutiny committee. It is not sufficient to have a negative resolution for the repeal of parts of primary legislation.
I also agree that there should be a sunset clause so that if this does not deliver in time the Government must come back to the House with fresh legislation, and there must be an upper limit on expenditure; otherwise, what we are given is simply an indefinite power to spend unlimited sums of taxpayers' money, and it is part of our job to stop that.
In conclusion, I agree in large measure with the view taken by my honourable friend in another place. It is far from clear that a solvent reconstruction is better than letting the company go into administration. We have been told that the cost is the same. I regard it as wholly inconceivable that the regulators and other authorities, the administrator or whoever, could possibly allow the management of these companies to imperil safety or undermine security. To suggest otherwise is scare tactics. The Government have certainly not heard the last of this sad affair.
4.3 p.m.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, it gives me particular pleasure to reassure my noble friend that I welcome the Bill and support his endeavours in taking it through this House. However, like the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, I agree to a large extent with much of what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra. It is by no means difficult to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, on energy matters. He is almost always right and should be listened to with the greatest care.
I was a little surprised at the onslaught on the Bill launched by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. It seemed to me that she attacked it rather as though she was trying to sink the "Bismarck". The Bill is not the "Bismarck". Her speech was very critical but in one respect—when she came to what she called the Government's hidden agenda—the noble Baroness raised my hopes and spirits. I said to myself, "If only I could be sure that the Government had such intentions at the hack of their minds". I have a horrible fear, however, that the noble Baroness was exaggerating.
I do not want to say much about the Bill. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, stated, it has implications for the future. We all know that nuclear power is necessary to secure a variety of sources of energy and that it is free from carbon dioxide emissions. That is why I was particularly pleased when the noble Lord drew attention to the burdens placed upon the nuclear industry by the climate change levy—mentioned also by the noble Baroness—and the undue burden of the business rate. Such burdens should not continue to be imposed upon the industry; they should be removed.
That apart, I welcome the Bill. It secures a future for the nuclear industry, although it does not tell us what that future is, nor indeed does the recent White Paper on energy, apart from the fact that the option will remain open. That does not tell us much that we did not already know. However, one part of the White Paper caught my attention. The chapter on transport points out that there is a future for hydrogen as a fuel for vehicles. Indeed, people are talking about the coming of the hydrogen economy. Last December, in the Foundation for Science and Technology, we were told that one gramme of hydrogen contains something like two-and-a-half times as much energy as a gramme of petrol. That is a significant increase; it explains why, if usable, hydrogen is desirable.
However, there is a problem. Hydrogen cannot be reaped like biomass, nor can it be dug up like coal. It has to be produced by a chemical process which requires a great deal of heat. There is no likelihood that renewables could produce that amount of heat without covering vast areas of the country with windmills which some people find unsightly. They take up an awful lot of room.
The only possible source of sufficient heat to produce the hydrogen economy is nuclear power. For that reason, if for no other the Government should change their rather negative and somewhat churlish attitude towards nuclear power. To take up a point by

621
the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, it is high time that the Government said something solid about the disposal of nuclear waste.
The Select Committee on Science and Technology of this House produced a report perhaps three or four years ago, but little has happened. The Government issued a paper advising on the manner of consulting on the disposal of nuclear waste. That is not good enough. The Government must begin the resuscitation of the nuclear industry, partly by means of the Bill and partly by making up their minds to push ahead with the proposals for the disposal of nuclear waste which were clearly and simply laid out in the Select Committee report.
4.9 p.m.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, in the debate on the gracious Speech on 20th November I declared a number of past energy interests. However, in view of the nature of the Bill I should repeat previous interests in British Energy inasmuch as I advised Scottish Nuclear for about a year prior to its privatisation. I continued to advise British Energy, as it then was, for about 18 months after it was joined by Scottish Nuclear.
It is a great pity that the Bill is necessary at all. None of us would have wished it. It is particularly sad for those of us who over the years have been keen supporters of nuclear energy.
British Energy, like other generators, has come through a very difficult period during which the wholesale price of electricity has fallen by approximately 40 per cent per kilowatt-hour while the retail domestic price has remained substantially consistent. That figure, as pointed out by my noble friend Lord Jenkin of Roding, was given to the House by the noble Lord, Lord Tombs, on 8th January when he initiated an interesting debate on the electricity supply industry. The noble Lord drew our attention to the fact that the rating burden on nuclear power stations is 50 per cent higher than that on fossil fuel stations and no less than 200 per cent higher than on wind-powered stations.
However, those are by no means the only disadvantages which government policy presents to the nuclear industry. There is the uncertainty over nuclear waste, which has already been mentioned and about which the Government have been dithering for years. And there is the cursed climate change levy, which is indiscriminately imposed despite the fact that nuclear power is not responsible for any of the pollution. This imposition has cost British Energy £100 million. Now, on top of those extra overheads, the industry will suffer from the missed opportunity of the energy White Paper. There will be other times when we can discuss that, but the indifferent press which it received highlights the general disappointment that prevails.
The Government are totally unrealistic and over-optimistic in their estimates of the contribution to power generation from alternative sources of energy. The only consolation which the energy Minister,
622
Mr Brian Wilson—for whom I have a healthy respect—can take from it is that the door has not been completely closed to nuclear power, and, in the company in which Mr Wilson finds himself, I suppose, he can claim that as something of a victory. It is a great pity, however, that the Government did not take the opportunity to make a clear statement on the future of nuclear power, as called for in the Trade and Industry Select Committee's report.
Industry and the public had better prepare themselves for higher electricity prices, and power cuts too, unless steps are taken to extend the life of existing nuclear stations until new replacements can be constructed. I am relieved that there appears to be nothing in the Bill which precludes British Energy or indeed any other company from such an application.
Alternative sources of energy can never wholly replace nuclear power, dependent as they are on the unpredictable weather for which these islands are notorious. At best, alternative sources will provide a useful back-up support.
So, in my view, the Government could have done little else other than support the British Energy call for help. By convention, this House does not vote on Second Readings save in exceptional occasions. For that I feel thankful as I would have found it very difficult to support my party if it had decided to oppose the Bill at Second Reading, as happened in another place. It may be that amendments will be tabled. I shall study them in due course, but I agree with the principle of the Bill. I congratulate the Government for showing initiative in supporting British Energy. I say that not because I have any great sympathy with the Government's policy in general, but because, had they not taken the action they have in the Bill, the whole British nuclear programme could have been at risk.
British Energy produced a plan for solvent restructuring as an alternative to administration, and the Government have responded. British Energy nuclear stations generate more revenue than their operating costs and it seems to me that to close them down would have been absolute folly. In any event, we have no indication of much interest from elsewhere in taking over those assets in the event of administration. We all hope that the solvent restructuring plan will succeed. Early indications are that the signs are promising. But administration has not gone away and much depends on the ultimate success of the plan.
The Minister said a little about the Bill in the event of the plan not being successful, an eventuality that we hope will not arise. But the company in such circumstances would be in administration. Security of supply would be in immediate jeopardy. What contingency plans do the Government have in the short term for such an event?
The noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, assured the House that the Government do not have any plans for renationalisation. Of course, we would vigorously oppose that. In practical terms, how would further rescue plans be implemented?

623
How, I ask myself, did British Energy reach this state of desperation? Since privatisation it has been a highly successful company. It has operated within the rigid requirements of the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate; it has a first-class safety record and good labour relations; it has made an excellent impression overseas; and it is respected within the industry.
Government policies, to which I have already referred, certainly played a significant part in creating its problems, but mistakes. I suspect, may have been made in its strategy. Perhaps it was not sufficiently broad based. Perhaps it was asking too much of one person to make Dr Jeffrey both its chairman and chief executive officer. On the technical side his knowledge and experience are second to none, but in itself that demanded an enormous amount of his time and dedication.
Furthermore, his successful negotiation of the investment programme overseas should not be forgotten. With hindsight, it might have been wiser to have had the technical and commercial expertise in different hands. British Energy is not the first company to have discovered that the joint role is not an automatic recipe for success.
The company must now be given a chance to implement the many facets of the restructuring plan. It is to be hoped that, under the new leadership of Mr Adrian Montague, the company will recover and, in due course, fully merit the confidence that has been shown in it.
4.19 p.m.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I thank noble Lords for their useful contributions to the debate. This is a short Bill, but it paves the way for the Government's future response to the problems of British Energy. It has been helpful for us to have an opportunity to consider both the specifics of the Bill and the wider issue of government's approach to British Energy.
Noble Lords have raised many issues on the Bill. However, it is important to remember that we are essentially faced with a specific situation. We have to deal with it in a practical and sensible way. I very much appreciate the words of the noble Lord, Lord Gray, who recognised that we have to deal with whether the business can be restructured or whether it goes into administration. We have to look at the matter from that point of view. I also share his view that it would be folly if this led to any kind of shut down of our nuclear capacity. Nuclear power still produces over 20 per cent of our electricity and we cannot afford that capacity to be removed.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, raised a number of questions, one of which concerned bondholders. In that context the Government set out the limits of their support for British Energy's restructuring plan on 28th November. It was for the company to reach agreement with its creditors within the limit of that support. It is a commercial matter for the creditors as to what their recovery will be under the terms reached with British Energy on 14th February.
624
As regards the shareholders, the company has made it very clear that a successful restructuring will inevitably involve a significant dilution of their interest. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, raised the spectre of re-nationalisation. If we were trying to re-nationalise companies we would simply have let this particular company go into administration. In the circumstances of it being totally unlikely that a buyer comes forward, we could then take it over. The quite clear intention behind the arrangements which we have made is to give this company an opportunity to restructure and remain in the private sector.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, then raised three areas of potential blame as regards British Energy. There is the question of BNFL and whether it is in some way responsible for British Energy's current position. Its relationship with BNFL is a commercial one between two companies. As the Minister of State for Energy and Construction said in another place, the difficulties of British Energy on the present scale came to our attention as a result of it becoming clear that the deal between BNFL, a commercial entity in its own right, and BE would not be enough to solve the problems of British Energy. There were substantial other problems involved which I have already enunciated.
The noble Baroness and the noble Lord, Lord Ezra also raised the new electricity trading arrangements (NETA). I do not accept that the reduction of wholesale prices was a disaster, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, implied. It has removed distortions which were inherent in the pool. It has helped to open up a highly competitive electricity market, which has resulted in a fall in prices to consumers. We have also seen a very substantial reduction in fuel poverty. That is in part attributable to the fall in electricity prices.
A question was raised about the part played by the climate change levy as regards the problems of British Energy. That levy was never meant to be a carbon tax; it is a downstream energy tax designed to encourage all sectors of business and the public sector to improve their energy efficiency. In that context it would have made no sense to have taken out nuclear energy which is a large part of the whole.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, raised the question of starting the Bill afresh now that restructuring is complete. But it is not complete. We have to face a situation where we can deal with a successful restructuring and also with the question of what happens if the business goes into administration. In that context it is essential we have everything in place to deal with administration in a proper and efficient way.
She raised Clause 2, which is concerned with the removal of restrictions on the capacity to acquire certain securities. She particularly highlighted subsection (3) which I shall read because I believe it will be helpful. It states that,
"Such an order may make consequential, transitional or saving provision (including provision modifying the Electricity Act 1989 or any other Act)".

625
Noble Lords may believe that that is too wide, but it is no wider than set out in that subsection.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. When the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform examined this very point it said,
"there is the potential for an order to repeal a provision, which is both 'live' and significant; in the case of the repeal of such a provision, the opportunity for a debate is, in the Committee's view, sufficiently important to require the affirmative procedure".
Do the Government accept that?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, this is obviously an issue to which we shall give great and careful attention. It is extremely important and we shall take that matter on board. I was simply making the point of what is covered here. It is not an open opportunity to amend any other piece of legislation, as I believe the noble Baroness implied. In this context the issue is quite narrowly defined, as I read it.
The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, raised the issue of restructuring as against administration. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, also raised the possibility that administration might be desirable. Given that almost certainly no private purchaser will come forward, the choice is between the action taken here and administration which leads to the Government taking over. In either case the Government have to take on very substantial liabilities. There is also the question of administration and its additional cost, which the taxpayer will have to take up. In any case, as a matter of government policy, we would prefer to keep the company in the private sector rather than have it taken over by the Government.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, how does what the Minister has said relate to what the Secretary of State said in that, as regards the taxpayer, there was no effective difference between restructuring and administration?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the Secretary of State was making the point that there were very substantial liabilities, which probably dwarf all other costs, and which have to be taken up by the Government. There is the additional cost of administration. Either way, the Secretary of State is quite right in that very significant costs have to be picked up by the Government and they are probably more, by a substantial factor, than the other costs involved.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding, asked what I meant by excessive exposure to wholesale electricity prices. I believe that that is quite clear. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, rightly made the point that as they were wholly dependent on wholesale prices, they were vulnerable if the wholesale prices declined.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, asked whether the Government were asking for a blank cheque. We wish to remove the Schedule 12 ceiling for nuclear liability support because we intend to stand as guarantor behind BE's nuclear liabilities. At this point we do not
626
have a fixed value to put on that. However, that does not mean that we are handing over a blank cheque to the company for it to spend as it sees fit or that we are throwing money down a bottomless pit. We will provide financial support to British Energy as regards its nuclear liabilities, but we shall do so subject to a number of safeguards such as controls on decommissioning plans, proper and transparent contracting of work, and the right to take over the station once decommissioning begins. These safeguards will help to keep costs under control. We shall be looking to put in place incentives for BE to reduce costs in this area. Any significant additional expenditure would need to be approved by Parliament and through the normal supply process.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, raised the question of state aid. The Government will be submitting a restructuring plan to the Commission by the 9th March deadline. The company has always been aware that the restructuring deal would need to meet the criteria of state aids approval. We are confident that the plan that we submit will be approved. But, if the initial deal is not approved, we expect to be able to negotiate a restructuring plan with the Commission.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, asked about distortion of competition. One must deal with realities in this situation. All the economic and the nuclear safety issues point to the retention of the company and to its assets being used in some way, unless one is prepared to propose its closure. The question is whether the company should be restructured, or whether it should go into administration and be taken over by the Government. The noble Lord asked whether the situation would be temporary. If restructuring takes place, it will not be temporary. If administration takes place and the Government take over, it will be difficult to predict how long the situation will last.
The noble Lord, Lord Jenkin, asked other questions on skills, nuclear waste and the inspectorate. They are important aspects of nuclear energy, particularly in keeping open the nuclear energy option. The Government will look at all those matters in that light.
The noble Lord, Lord Howie, raised several points about hydrogen. He is right that, if hydrogen is to be used, an energy source will be needed to produce it. That will be an important aspect of energy policy as we progress. But it relates to energy policy rather than to the precise nature of the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Gray, raised some extremely important questions, but we must deal with them in the context of future energy policy. The Bill is very much about what happens to the company here and now. The noble Lord also asked what would happen if the company went into administration and whether we had planned and prepared for it. We made it clear that, were the restructuring deal not to succeed, we would be prepared to fund an administrator to run the company in administration. The Government are being careful to ensure that plans for an administration are now in place so that the company could move swiftly and smoothly into that process if necessary. The

627
administration would have to ensure that stations continued to operate and that nuclear safety and security of supply were guaranteed. We have now had time to put those plans in place.
This short Bill is an important part of the Government's response to the difficulties of British Energy. It provides the tools for us to deliver our part of the company's restructuring plan. The plan appears to be progressing well at present. But, in the event that the company falters along the way, the Bill will ensure that there is a satisfactory way forward if the company goes into administration. It is a sensible, practical Bill. It is in line with the Government's overall approach to British Energy. I commend it to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Grand Committee.

Crime (International Co-operation) Bill [H.L.]
4.33 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Filkin): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill he further considered on Report.—(Lord Filkin.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 71:
After Clause 80, insert the following new clause—
"FIREARMS: INTERNATIONAL CO-OPERATION AND GENERAL DUTY OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE
(1) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to facilitate the work of—

(a) police forces in Great Britain,

(b) the Police Service of Northern Ireland,

(c) the National Criminal Intelligence Service, and

(d) the National Crime Squad,

in preventing the unlawful importation of firearms into the United Kingdom by ensuring effective international co-operation between those bodies and other foreign and international law enforcement agencies.
(2)When the Secretary of State is—

(a) preparing a National Policing Plan under section 36A of the Police Act 1996 (c. 16) (national policing plan);

(b) determining objectives for the policing of the areas of all police authorities under section 37 of that Act (setting of objectives for police authorities);

(c) determining objectives for the National Criminal Intelligence Service under section 26 of the Police Act 1997 (setting of objectives);

(d) determining objectives for the National Crime Squad under section 71 of that Act (setting of objectives);

he shall have regard to the desirability of ensuring effective co-operation with foreign and international law enforcement agencies to prevent the unlawful importation of firearms into the United Kingdom."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment would insert a new clause on international co-operation and the general duty of the Secretary of State on firearms and firearms-related crime.
I have focused on the work done by the Home Office and the law enforcement agencies in preventing the importation of firearms into the United Kingdom. Naturally, I pay tribute to the work already undertaken in this area by the men and women of the National Criminal Intelligence Service, the National Crime Squad, the police and other law enforcement agencies—not least Customs and Excise, which is at the coalface in trying to detect those weapons.
My amendment would require the Secretary of State to facilitate the work of the law enforcement agencies by ensuring effective international co-operation between the police forces of the UK and the authorities in other countries. It would also require the Home Secretary to have regard to the desirability of ensuring such effective co-operation to prevent the importation of firearms when setting the priorities, plans and objectives for police forces under the legislation that authorises him to set those priorities, plans and objectives.
I asked the Government in Committee to put on the record the approach that they intend to take to the problem of firearms already in the UK and the conversion of replica weapons and airguns. The amendment seeks to prompt an explanation horn the Government of what work they and the law enforcement agencies are carrying out to stop guns coming into our country from abroad. It is also a call for the Government to address the creation of a long-term strategy to prevent firearms getting into this country and on to our streets.
In his response in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, made some helpful comments, for which I thank him. I need to return to the issue for two reasons: first, to ask the Minister to respond more fully to matters I raised in Committee; and, secondly, to ask questions based on the facts given in the NCIS UK threat assessment 2002. I had not had the opportunity to read the assessment at the time of the Committee stage. A third reason for raising the issue is a press release from the Home Office today, to which I shall refer later.
The Minister referred in Committee to the creation of a national computerised forensic firearms intelligence database to be used for tracking guns used in crime. It is to be run within the Forensic Science Service—a welcome development. I asked the Minister whether the tracking of those guns related only to crimes committed in this country, or whether our agencies would have access to information on guns used in overseas crime. The Minister helpfully, wrote to me on the matter on 18th February. I invite him today to put his answer on the record from the Dispatch Box. In addition, what budget has been allocated for setting up the new service? Is it new money, or has it been re-allocated from another service? Finally, what is the timetable for completing the establishment of that welcome service?
The second follow-up question relates to the Minister's comment in Grand Committee, as reported at col. EC 196 of Hansard, on the Government's intention to introduce a mandatory minimum sentence

629
for the possession of illegal firearms. Has an amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill now been tabled in another place? Will it be an absolute mandatory minimum sentence, or will there be room for manoeuvre by the judiciary to find exceptional circumstances in which a person should not face such a sentence? I have in mind, for example, the situation of someone who legally holds a firearm but whose licence expires. In the interim period, while applying for a new licence, that person might be arrested.
I have new queries as a result of reading the NCIS threat assessment 2002, in particular paragraph 7.16. It states:
"The UN protocol against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, their Parts and Components and Ammunition passed in May 2001, outlines measures to be taken by signatory countries to combat criminal possession of firearms".
This is the important point:
"This may encourage a rush to dispose of supplies before the protocol is incorporated into law in each signatory country".
How are the Government preparing to deal with the dumping of firearms by governments as a consequence of the signing of the UN protocol? What mechanisms do they have in place?
I note that the NCIS threat assessment makes the point that Her Majesty's Customs and Excise has already seized illegally imported firearms, still in their original packaging and unused, but manufactured in the 1950s. They are believed to have originated from surplus stock belonging to a foreign government.
I noticed this morning that the Home Office had issued a press release stating that there would be a national firearms amnesty—the first, I understand, since 1996. In the context of the Bill, will the Minister comment on how the firearms amnesty fits in with the Government's general policy on illegal firearms and their prohibition on importation? I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, firearms are used in the easiest, most simple and most menacing acts of international terrorism committed by individuals who move from one country to another. My noble friend's amendment is therefore very important. The Bill would be incomplete without the amendment or something like it.
The proposed new clause would impose a duty on the Secretary of State to prevent the importation of firearms into the United Kingdom by requiring the various police bodies to take steps to prevent their importation. The rather elaborate provisions in subsection (2) are not easy to define but my noble friend has gone as far as possible in the drafting. I hope that the Government will accept the amendment. Indeed, I hope that noble Lords in all parts of the House will feel that it is brought forward with good intentions and that something must be done along the lines of the amendment.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, in Grand Committee the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, made an important contribution—he is in his place today and
630
may enter the debate again—in which he reminded the Committee about the two Bills passed in 1997 which prevent many people from possessing firearms. In my experience, those Bills have been a disaster. Like many country people, I possess a shotgun. I have a relative who possesses a rifle. We have to lock our arms up against each other in a cupboard with numerous locks. When I see a rabbit in my garden that I want to shoot, I have to unlock so many locks that by the time I am ready to take aim the rabbit has disappeared. As that is the only thing I use my gun for, it is fairly useless.
We know that firearms crime has risen. The Bills have failed and we have to admit it. What do the Government hope to achieve by the amnesty they have announced? Does it foretell more legislation of the kind we have had already? The previous amnesty foretold that; I hope it is not true.
When the Minister wrote to my noble friend, he kindly sent me a letter on 18th February in which he stated that the Government could turn to Interpol to find out anything they wanted to know about weapons which had been illegally imported into this country. How successful has that arrangement been? It would be very much better if there were a deliberate attempt to find out about imported firearms in the way suggested by my noble friend's amendment.
Will the Government know what proportion of the firearms surrendered in the amnesty have been imported recently? It seems rather doubtful that they will, but there may be a way of finding out. That would be important. If the Government do not like my noble friend's amendment, perhaps they will tell us why.
The Government are not confronting this problem well. The previous legislation was a failure. We do not want this Bill also to be a failure in regard to arms from overseas.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, in a very brief appearance in Grand Committee I, too, supported the amendment. I do so again today. I would much rather see this amendment on the statute book than the proposed minimum sentence of five years for illegal possession of firearms. The important point is that it is a mandatory minimum sentence, which is particularly odd as the maximum sentence for the offence is seven years. It hardly gives a judge much room for manoeuvre if the minimum sentence is five years and the maximum sentence is seven years. Surely it would he better to increase the maximum sentence rather than impose a mandatory minimum sentence. But that may be for another day.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I, too, support the amendment. It is good that it has been brought forward again because it makes it quite clear to the Government that Parliament as a whole—or certainly this House—is very concerned about the real problem with gun crime in this country—that is, the importation of weapons. As I said in Grand Committee, the Government have tended to concentrate on removing weapons from the possession

631
of upright, decent citizens, including policemen, which they use for target shooting. They seem to have forgotten about the real culprits, the gangsters who kill people on our streets and in our various communities.
I hope that the Government will take the amendment seriously. I do not know whether the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, will press it to a Division, but if she does I shall certainly vote for it. It would he valuable to have on record the view of the House.
I am concerned about the amnesty because it does not treat the subject seriously. In my view—I may be wrong—the only people who will hand in their guns under the amnesty will be those who perhaps kept them when they should have given them up previously. But they are not the kind of people who will use them. The kind of people who use weapons for intimidation, threat and murder will not give up their guns. Once again, it will be the comparatively innocent who conform to the amnesty.
I hope that the Government will turn their attention from toy guns and removing firearms from those who use them responsibly and legitimately towards cracking down with everything they have got on those people who have firearms to use in crime and, above all, to kill people. That is why I hope that the noble Baroness will press the amendment and that it will be successful.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, the amendment does not add anything to what the Government are already doing. It is full of aspirations, and that is all. My noble friend is well advised at the moment in regard to doing something about international crime. When I was a Minister, we also considered the importance of dealing with international crime.
So what does Amendment No. 71 say in that regard? It refers to the desirability of,
"ensuring effective co-operation with foreign and international law enforcement agencies".
and so forth. But that happens already. While I express general support for the underlying principles, they do not have to be incorporated in the Act. Everything proposed in the amendment is being undertaken by the Government. I hope that their efforts will be crowned with success. The importance of dealing with international crime by international measures is a salient point of the Bill. It is no good denying that.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, sits down, is it his view that the matter is already dealt with and is supported by provisions already in the Bill or is he relying on legislation outside the Bill?
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I know that the noble Lord, Lord Renton, is always anxious to interrupt anything I say. No? Then I have been misinformed all these years.
632
The Bill is all about international co-operation. The steps that I outlined are enumerated time and again in the Bill and in practice. Practice is even more important.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, I support every word said by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd. I hope that the Government realise that the minimum mandatory sentences that they propose will be unacceptable to many people. Far more would be achieved in the area of gun control by preventing the importing of guns into this country rather than worrying about mandatory sentences which, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd said, will be unnecessary in these circumstances.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I support the intention of most noble Lords about how, as a society, we seek to make further successful efforts at eradicating the unlawful and dangerous proliferation of guns in our society. I do not differ from noble Lords who have spoken one iota on that, but I seek to illustrate, for two reasons, why I believe that this Bill is not the appropriate legislation for dealing with that issue. First, the Bill is concerned with putting into legislation the Schengen convention, which we have discussed many times. Secondly and perhaps more profoundly, either the Government have already taken action to provide adequate legislation to address these issues or we are clear as to what else we want to do in the future to do so.
We also had a wide-ranging discussion on this matter in Committee. As I said then, the Government are wholly committed to working with their international partners to prevent the unlawful importation of firearms. I am happy to repeat the assurances that I gave in Committee for the wider audience here today. We already have some of the toughest gun controls in the world. We have been working with the police to ensure good security of legally held weapons to prevent them from being stolen, and we are looking at the need to establish stricter controls on deactivation standards.
We are working very closely with our EU partners and with the various UN bodies. We are heavily engaged in ensuring that governments and law enforcement agencies work together as closely as possible within the varying systems so that any gaps are not exploited by those who are organising and profiting from criminal businesses. It is essential to tackle these problems as far upstream as possible. That is why the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Her Majesty's Customs and Excise, the Department for International Development and other agencies are assisting governments and law enforcement agencies in countries which are at the head of the chain. Assistance to countries such as Jamaica, Turkey, the Balkan states, Colombia and Pakistan includes training, funding to buy equipment and help in drawing up the right legislation in those countries.
Taking out the major players is a key objective and we are doing all that we can to support this. Unfortunately, rising levels of violent armed crime are

633
not unique to this country. We are trying to improve our knowledge and understanding of the issues that face other countries around the world or that have been experienced by other countries and met with varying responses. Government and law enforcement officers are talking in detail with other agencies and exchanging views on what measures work with our international counterparts.
As I said in Committee, the National Crime Squad and the National Criminal Intelligence Service play a key role in the intelligence-led approach to gun crime, in London as elsewhere. NCIS runs a national firearms tracing service, which provides intelligence on the source and use of guns used in crime.
That will be complemented by a new national computerised forensic firearms intelligence database set up with £1.4 million funding from the Home Office. It will be run within the Forensic Science Service. It will help track the provenance of guns and ammunition used in crime and will be able to identify any links with a gun which may have been used in a number of crimes. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, raised that issue and she will recognise this as a crucial element of our attack on the problem.
In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, asked whether the database would include information on guns used in crimes overseas. As I said in my subsequent letter to the noble Baroness, I confirm that this is essentially a domestic service for tracking weapons that come to the notice of a UK police force. Of course, NCIS can turn to Interpol for information on weapons that have come from abroad. I shall speak to that issue in more detail in my response.
In Committee, I referred to the changes that we intended to make in the Criminal Justice Bill. Although this is not the time to discuss them in detail, it might be helpful if I clarified our intentions. We propose to include in the Criminal Justice Bill a provision which will introduce a five-year minimum sentence for the illegal possession of prohibited weapons. We also intend as part of the Anti-Social Behaviour Bill to make it an offence to possess an air weapon or an imitation firearm in a public place without lawful authority or reasonable excuse. We shall also be taking measures to ban the sale, manufacture and import of firearms using self-contained air cartridge systems, such as Brocock, and to license those already held.
The objectives of the National Criminal Intelligence Service already require it to,
"provide high quality assessments and actionable intelligence in order to increase disruption of criminal enterprises engaged in other forms of serious and organised crime … and maximise mutual support and co-operation with law enforcement agencies at … international level".
I am sure that the noble Baroness acknowledges that those NCIS objectives are already clear and explicit.
634
Similarly, the National Crime Squad is already tasked,
"to dismantle or disrupt criminal enterprises engaged in other forms of serious and organised crime … maximising co-operation with law enforcement agencies at … international levels-.
It is already there.
The National Policing Plan already identifies, as it should, gun crime as a high priority for all police forces and refers to the critical role that they play in tackling it.
Therefore, there are three clear illustrations of where this is quite rightly on the explicit agenda and obligations of those bodies. Amendment No. 71, while useful for provoking a debate, would repeat what is already in operation.
I turn now to the UN Protocol against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms adopted by the General Assembly in May 2001. It was one of three protocols signed at that time, and it was signed by the UK in 2002. The protocol is an important move towards better international regulation of small arms transfers. It creates tough international controls on the movement of firearms and increases international co-operation among police and Customs.
As I said when I responded to questions about why we were setting up our own domestic system, both domestic and international efforts to reduce illicit trafficking rest on the ability to track and trace individual firearms. The protocol will require firearms to be uniquely identified, and the marking of all newly manufactured firearms, as required by the protocol, will be a useful law enforcement tool. I know that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, understands that and the thrust of her amendment is whether there would be a danger of a flood of importation in advance of the measure being put in place.
We are alert to that risk. We have no intelligence or other evidence so far that there is a serious risk. However, we would be foolish if we were complacent—our police forces and Her Majesty's Customs and Excise arc on alert. At present, our position is that while this is a possibility, there is no evidence to signal a major threat. However, we would be foolish if we did not recognise that we could be wrong, which is why HMCE are in clear recognition of the importance of tracking that and being alert to it.
Perhaps I may touch further on gun smuggling. While we are not complacent about the risks of further smuggling of firearms, currently the majority of weapons recovered from domestic crimes have been obtained domestically or are converted weapons. The evidence that the police intelligence services have is that the guns being used or displayed within Britain are here as a result of the sources I have signalled. Customs does and will work closely with NCIS and respond to any intelligence from domestic and overseas sources to seek illegal weapons sought to be brought in. In the past 10 months, Customs has made four seizures of significant assignments of weapons. That was made public in the response of my honourable friend John Healey to a question asked by Peter Kilfoyle.

635
The firearms amnesty is a piece of common sense. If one is looking to strengthen the laws to make the carrying of firearms, or their use, more strictly prohibited, it makes sense now to enable anyone who has a gun, whether legally or illegally acquired, to be able to get rid of it and put it into the hands of the police. One is not Pollyanna-ish about this. One does not expect that it will crack the problem. Although previous gun amnesties have made a contribution, they do not transform the situation. However, if only 1,000 guns are removed from use, it is worth doing. None of us would contradict that.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, before my noble friend concludes his remarks, will he comment on the co-operation which currently exists between our police forces and other agencies and the international law enforcement agencies? I understand that the situation is satisfactory but not beyond improvement.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I shall seek to respond to my noble friend's questions in the course of my responses. I will not rise to the temptation to talk in detail about the Criminal Justice Bill or any amendments which might be, but as yet have not been, tabled to it. We will have plenty of opportunity to debate those issues and I am sure that this House as ever will give them full measure as a consequence of its scrutiny processes. I am advised that the amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill to which reference was made has not yet been tabled. I note the points about minimum advocacy standards and I shall leave it to my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton to respond to those issues when the Bill is introduced into this House.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before moving on, would the noble Lord be good enough to answer a question? It seems to be the Government's intention to get this Bill, which is urgently needed, through Parliament as soon as possible. However, the new Criminal Justice Bill has not yet been introduced and there could be a big gap between obtaining Royal Assent to each of the two Bills.
5 p.m.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I should be pleased if we were able to pass a Bill with which this House was content. We are not making too bad progress, while giving it further and proper testing. As regards the noble Lord's proper anxiety that we might be slow on the Criminal Justice Bill, I am confident that we shall be seeing the Bill in all its glory before not too long. There will not be massive delays between the two Bills. This House and the other place permitting, the intention is that they will be passed within this current Session of Parliament.
The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, asked about the national firearm forensic intelligence data base. A new computerised Home Office funded data base is being established which will help trace guns used in crime. It is being set up with £1.4 million of Home Office
636
funding and it will go fully live in April 2003. We are also providing additional funding of £500,000 in 2003–04 for police forces to increase the number of seized firearms which they submit for forensic examination. The noble Baroness asked whether that was new money or old—it sounds a little like "Aladdin"—and I am pretty certain that it is new. However, I shall write to her to put the matter beyond doubt. If she will take that as a holding answer, I shall confirm the position in writing.
I have signalled the prospective measures in the CJS Bill and do not want to excite the House to debate them further. I want to comment, as required, in response to the questions asked by my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis about international co-operation. I shall comment briefly on Interpol and firearms. As part of Interpol's anti-terrorism branch, the arms section was initiated to suppress international firearms proliferation. The arms section focused on joining with Interpol member countries to create an atmosphere of sharing information that will result in the elimination of firearms trafficking and the violent crime associated with it.
An example of Interpol's international co-operation exchange of information to combat firearms proliferation is the Interpol weapons and explosives tracking system, commonly referred to as IWETS. It is the only international analytic data base designed to collate information on illegal firearms trafficking and it provides current indexes of firearms manufacturers and other information that facilitates the identification of firearms.
My noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis clearly signalled that there is always more that can be done. I do not challenge that for a second. I do not believe that the concern in the Home Office at present mirrors the concerns felt in large parts of British civil society; that we do not like what we are seeing in terms of the increased casual carrying of guns by young people which, in a sense, is as bad as the regular use of them in criminal activity. That is why we believe that the OS Bill is needed, but I shall leave that for another day.
In terms of other general co-operation, the UK passes intelligence to Europol on a regular basis and clearly Europol and Interpol work closely on these issues. I could speak longer but the House would not thank me for doing do. I respect the intention behind this short debate but do not believe that this is the place for legislative changes. There may be subsequent opportunities to discuss them, but I fully recognise the need for the Government to continue to bear down on this issue with maximum energy.
Lord Sandberg: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, will he clear up a point he made earlier in regard to international problems? I could understand his references to Jamaica and Colombia; however, I could not quite understand his reference to Pakistan. Please will he clarify that point?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I cannot say much more than I already have. In essence, it is one on a list of countries that we have where we think there are high

637
risks. I should be pleased to write to the noble Lord giving more detail about why Pakistan sits in that position.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his response, although it is disappointing in some respects. This is an amendment that gathered momentum in its progress through Grand Committee and subsequently today.
On an important matter of detail, I thank the Minister for his care in answering the further questions that I put today with regard to the national firearms intelligence database. I welcome his offer to write to me as regards the budget for that, which will be most helpful.
I thank the Minister for his comments on policy generally with regard to the holding of firearms—particularly illegal firearms—and for the fact that the Government are on the alert with regard to the possible dumping of firearms as a result of the UN protocol. These are uncharted waters, if I may mix my metaphors somewhat badly. It is a matter of needing to be on the alert. We shall naturally be asking particular questions about that as the time proves right.
I am grateful to the Minister for the limited comments he was able to make on the important matter of the amnesty announced today. That does not get round the general principle underlying the amendment; namely, the provision of a constructive framework within which there is a clear direction to the Home Secretary as to how he should act in these important matters.
I was grateful to my noble friends Lord Renton and Lady Carnegy, to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, and to the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, for their support. The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, made the point that the amendment gives the House an opportunity to show support and express its concern on these matters, and the fact that it is to the illegal importation of firearms that we need to direct our attention as much as anything else. That is an important issue.
I understood exactly the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis. He was careful to say that the aspiration of the clause is a good one. But he argued, as the Minister did, that the amendment does not need to be on the face of the Bill because it will be done anyway.
The Minister will be aware that the Government have sometimes taken the opportunity to "Christmas tree" the Bill, but in a very proper way. We supported them on their amendments relating to terrorism property freezing orders, which were not to the core of the original purpose of the Bill but properly came within the Long Title. We wholly supported the Government's activity in that area. The Minister said in Grand Committee that it was appropriate to take the opportunity, when a Bill such as this came along, to do something that was right. I agree with him, and I have to take exactly the same line with regard to this amendment. I believe that it is right and I should like to test the opinion of the House.
5.11 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 71) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 69; Not-Contents, 158.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Hylton, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Jopling, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Lang of Monkton, L.

Blackwell, L.

Lloyd of Berwick, L.

Blatch, B.

Luke, L.

Bowness, L.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

MacGregor of Pulham Market,L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Burnham, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Buscombe, B.

Marlesford, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Moynihan, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Northesk, E.

Chorley, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Colwyn, L.

Peel, E.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Perry of Southwark, B.

Craigavon, V.

Rees, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Renton, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Rogan, L.

Denham,L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Elton, L.

Soulsby of Swaffham Prior, L.

Fookes, B.

Stewartby, L.

Fowler, L.

Stodart of Leaston, L.

Freeman, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Strathdyde, L.

Geddes, L.

Swinfen, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Taylor of Warwick, L.

Hanham, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Henley, L.

Trumpington, B.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Waddington, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Wade of Chorlton, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Wakeham, L.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Wilcox, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Christopher, L.

Addington, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Ahmed, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Allenby of Megiddo, V.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Alli, L.

Craig of Radley, L.

Ampthill, L.

Crawley, B.

Andrews, B.

Dahrendorf, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

David, B.

Bach, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Barker, B.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Barnett, L.

Desai, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Dholakia, L.

Berkeley, L.

Dixon, L.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Donoughue, L.

Blackstone, B.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Borrie, L.

Elder, L.

Bragg, L.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Brennan, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L

Brett, L.

Ezra, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Brookman, L.

Fearn, L.

Burlison, L.

Filkin, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Fitt, L.

Carter, L.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Chan, L.

Gale, B.

639

Gilbert, L.

Orme, L.

Gladwin of Clee, L.

Ouseley, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Palmer, L.

Goodhart, L.

Parekh, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Patel, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Grabiner, L.

Paul, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Pendry, L.

Gregson, L.

Phillips of Sudbury,L.

Grocott,L.[Teller]

Plant of Highfield,L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Harrison, L.

Radice, L.

Haskel, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Hattersley, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Hayman, B.

Razzall, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Rea, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Rennard, L.

Hooson, L.

Richard, L.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

St.John of Bletso, L.

Hoyle, L.

Sandberg, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Sawyer, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Sheldon, L.

Simon, V.

Jacobs, L

Slim, V.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Stallard, L.

Jeger, B.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Jones, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Jordan, L.

Taverne, L.

Judd, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Tenby, V.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Thornton, B.

Levy, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Lipsey, L.

Turnberg, L.

Listowel, E.

Turner of Camden, B.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Uddin, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Varley, L.

Walmsley, B.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Warner, L.

McNally, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Maddock, B.

Weatherill, L.

Marsh, L.

Whitaker, B.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Whitty, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Wilkins, B.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Mitchell, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seal)

Morgan, L.

Newby, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.23 p.m.
Clause 82 [Foreign surveillance operations]:
Lord Filkin moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 55, line 28, leave out "corresponding Scottish legislation" and insert "Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Scotland) Act 2000"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I hope, as I am sure will be the case, that the House recognises that this is a n example of where we have listened to comments made by Opposition Members in Committee. We are pleased to bring forward these technical amendments, clarifying and simplifying the number of references to
640
the Bill's application in Scotland. The last amendment in the grouping, Amendment No. 92, also defines an officer in the United Kingdom.
Amendments Nos. 72 and 91 reflect the need for consistency in the Bill when directly referring to a particular Act—in this case, the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Scotland) Act 2000. Amendment No. 92 simply defines "UK officer" as now referred to in the revised Section 76A(1)(c) in the redrafted Bill prepared for Report. It makes it clear that the police, Customs, NCIS or NCS will be taking over this sort of surveillance. In addition, it takes account of the Committee's view that the formulation previously proposed was insufficiently transparent, if I may use that phrase. The amendment refers to the Scottish Crime Squad. Section 9 of RIPA (Scotland) enables the Scottish Crime Squad and any successor to conduct authorised surveillance.
The new drafting will cover the operational and intelligence groups—the OIG—of the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency, which have taken over the functions of the Scottish Crime Squad. The wording also ensures that Section 76A would cover any other joint operation that might be established under any future collaborative agreements between Scottish police forces and would perform the same function as the OIG.
The OIG is a joint operation established by agreement between the chief constables of the Scottish police forces under Section 12 of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967. It took over the work of the Scottish Crime Squad and undertakes similar activities to those of the National Crime Squad.
Section 9 of RIPA (Scotland) enables the Scottish Crime Squad and any other joint operation established under Section 12 of the 1967 Act which fulfils similar purposes to conduct authorised surveillance. Accordingly, as the OIG performs similar purposes to the SCS, it, too, is authorised under RIPA (Scotland) to carry out surveillance. If the OIG's surveillance function were to be replaced by another joint operation established under the 1967 Act, this, too, would be able to conduct authorised surveillance under RIPA (Scotland) because of Section 9.
Paragraph (c) of the last amendment is reworded to remove the previous confusion and to ensure that Section 76A will apply where the OIG or any successor cannot physically take over surveillance when the foreign officers arrive.
Similar provision need not be made for NCIS or NCS because they are statutory creations. If they were to be reformulated or replaced, primary legislation would be needed, which could include a consequential amendment to change the references to them here. I beg to move.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I am sure the House will be grateful to the Minister for bringing arrangements in Scotland in line with those for the rest of the United Kingdom. This is another example of the interesting process that has to take place when European framework decisions have to be implemented in our

641
country where the police and related agencies are devolved matters, as well as the need to apply European decisions to jurisdiction.
It is a great relief to see that the corresponding Scottish legislation, which was in the Explanatory Notes and still in the Bill in Committee, is no longer a sign of "Watch this space" but has turned into the relevant Act. I am sure we are all very grateful to the Minister.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I have a small question for the Minister. Amendment No. 92 clarifies that a United Kingdom officer means a member of a police force, a member of NCIS, a member of the National Crime Squad and Customs officers. Immigration officers have certain policing powers in the course of the functions they carry out. Does this apply to foreign officers and, if so, should they be included in the amendment?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, our judgment is that there is no need for immigration officers to be included under the amendment; they are not relevant to the thrust of it. I shall he happy to explain that in more detail in a letter.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 73:
Page 55, line 28, at end insert—
"() In subsection (1)(c) it is "not reasonably practicable" for a United Kingdom officer to carry out the surveillance in the United Kingdom only if the duration of the foreign police or customs officer's travel to the United Kingdom is shorter than could reasonably allow for arrangements to be made for a United Kingdom officer to carry out surveillance."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, with the Government's previous group of amendments, we have reached the controversial part of the Bill to do with hot surveillance. The Government have made some very helpful concessions to points we made in Grand Committee. I should like to make it clear to the House, as I have already done to the Minister's office, that the Minister's reply to the amendments that I have tabled to Clause 82 today will need my careful consideration between Report and Third Reading. I am using all my amendments on Clause 82—I stress that it is just on Clause 82—to elicit as full and clear a picture as possible of the legal position on hot surveillance. I am trying to achieve clear signposts, for the public and the lawyers who advise them, with regard to potentially significant changes to the law.
This is one of the complex outstanding issues. We may be dancing on the head of a pin, but we need to get the issue out of the way before Third Reading.
Amendment No. 73 is a modified version of an amendment that I tabled in Grand Committee. It would place on the face of the Bill a version of the Home Office's explanation of the effect of acceding to the Schengen agreement, given three years ago. In the
642
original version of the Bill, the test proposed by the Government for allowing hot surveillance to be carried out by foreign officers was:
"it is not reasonably practicable in those circumstances to request a person in the United Kingdom to apply for an authorisation under Part 2, or the corresponding Scottish legislation, for the carrying out of the surveillance".
As amended by the Government in Grand Committee, that test now reads:
"it is not reasonably practicable in those circumstances for a United Kingdom officer to carry out the surveillance in the United Kingdom in accordance with an authorisation under Part 2 or the corresponding Scottish legislation".
That is not just a shifting around of words. There is a significant difference between what the Government said when they acceded to Schengen about the circumstances in which hot surveillance would occur and what the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, said in Grand Committee.
The noble Lord rightly said that the Government did not want to run the risk of being unable to take over surveillance operations because of unforeseen and insurmountable difficulties. However, his list of such possible difficulties appeared to amount to the possibility of a dead mobile telephone battery. I teased him about that at the time, although it was a serious teasing. I have tabled the amendment to give the Government the opportunity to explain more fully the reasons behind their decision to amend the criteria in the Bill and to depart from the assurances given at the time of the UK's decision to accede to Schengen. I should like a fuller explanation of the scenarios in which they envisage that it will not be reasonably practicable for UK officers to carry out surveillance. In particular, I would be grateful for some further details on what the Government consider to be sufficient time for the authorisation to be sought and a UK team to take over the surveillance. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, in considering the effect of the amendment, I note that account has been taken of the operational requirements on which the Government's change in approach is based. However, the Government are still not fully clear about what the amendment would achieve beyond the current wording of the Bill, although the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, has signalled—I think without prejudice to further consideration—that in essence it is a probing amendment to place clearly in Hansard exactly where we stand on these issues.
As we discussed in Committee, the wording of the amendment draws on that used in the UK's original Schengen application in 1999. However, as I said during the previous debate on this amendment, consultation with operational agencies identified that, although UK officers will in most cases take over the surveillance operations—that is clearly our wish—situations may arise that would make implementation difficult if we continued to maintain our original approach.

643
Defining "reasonably practicable" purely by reference to the overseas officers' journey time would simply create more problems and uncertainty. Enforcing a condition such as the one proposed in the amendment would be very difficult.
The provisions cover three different circumstances. The first is when the foreign officers are unable to seek prior authorisation. Because of the UK's geography, such circumstances are likely to arise only very rarely, but it is possible to envisage occasions on which radio or telephone equipment fails—despite my being teased about that in Committee. Perhaps more seriously, one could envisage a situation in which the National Criminal Intelligence Service had been evacuated as a consequence of an emergency. Such situations may appear unlikely and we hope they would be very rare, but they are not beyond the bounds of possibility and we would be foolish to leave ourselves without a legislative opportunity in those circumstances.
The second situation is when a prior request for authorisation is made, but there is insufficient time to secure the authorisation in the United Kingdom. The third is when the request is made and authorised, but there is insufficient time to arrange for a UK team to be in place at the border to take over the surveillance.
Although the revised amendment appears to try to cover the last two situations, the first one would fall outside the wording proposed. The improbability of such situations is not sufficient grounds for ruling them out when making arrangements for surveillance operations dealing with serious crimes. The amendment would make the clauses unworkable in those rare cases.
Since Committee, the Government have reflected and tabled some amendments to put some of the conditions on cross-border surveillance on the face of the Bill, as we were urged to do. However, our position on this amendment has not changed. We still consider that the condition should not be explicitly stated on the face of the Bill, because of the operational and practical difficulties of defining "reasonably practicable" in this way. Section 76A(1)(c) already makes it clear that the section applies only if it is not reasonably practicable for UK officers to take over the surveillance when it arrives in the UK. That means that the section applies only in the urgent cases envisaged by Article 40.2. If the foreign officers could have rung up sufficiently far in advance to give a UK team enough time to take over the surveillance but chose not to do so, the section will not apply. Similarly, if they ring but the UK authorities do not try to put a team in place for particular reasons—for example, if they are stretched elsewhere—the section will not apply. In both cases, it would have been reasonably practicable in the circumstances for a team to take over the surveillance.
Further, the amendment appears to envisage that the time it would take a UK team to take over the surveillance will he fixed. It will not. It will vary depending on a number of factors, including the resources required for that surveillance. For example, a foreign officer might ring up from Calais and say that
644
he is about to follow a suspect to Dover. Sometimes it will be possible to put a UK team in place to meet him, but sometimes it will not. The circumstances may be the same in both cases, but different operational pressures may obtain in the United Kingdom.
That is the effect of the clause as it stands and accordingly we consider that defining "reasonably practicable" by reference to journey times is unnecessary and unhelpful. I understand that the amendment was probing.
Clause 82 implements the requirements of Article 40.2 of the Schengen Convention for officers from one member state to be allowed to cross a border to conduct unauthorised surveillance in another Schengen state for up to five hours in exceptional circumstances. When the UK applied to Schengen, we chose to opt into this provision, because UK law enforcement sees it as a key operational development in the fight against organised and international crime.
Clause 82 ensures that the surveillance that the foreign officers will be carrying out is lawful. As I have said, we do not expect such urgent situations to arise often. Most cross-border surveillance operations under Schengen will be pre-arranged.
I hope I have given a sufficiently full explanation to the probing amendment and, at least in part, given the noble Baroness the information that she seeks.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his helpful response to my probing amendment. He has expanded helpfully on the circumstances in which hot surveillance may be necessary, when we cannot get our own security teams in place. He pointed out that the Government do not want to put all the conditions of Schengen on the face of the Bill. Neither do I. There are some that I accept would not properly appear on the face of the Bill, but which the Government still need to explain properly at the Dispatch Box. The Minister has done that admirably. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 74:
Page 55, line 37, after "party" insert ", which is an offence under the law of any part of the United Kingdom"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the clause inserts new Section 76A into the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. It allows foreign police or customs officers to conduct the hot surveillance operations that we have been talking about. They can do that in respect of persons who are suspected of having committed a relevant crime. That is defined in subsection (3) as one that,
"(a) falls within Article 40(7) of the Schengen Convention; or
(b) is crime for the purposes of any other international agreement to which the United Kingdom is a party and wh.ch is specified for the purposes of this section in an order made by the Secretary of State with the consent of the Scottish Ministers".
This probing amendment relates to the second of those definitions and seeks to limit such crimes to those that are offences under UK law. The amendment

645
was debated in Grand Committee on 29th January, when the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, attempted to reassure us that any future international agreements and any orders made by the Secretary of State would be subject to parliamentary scrutiny. He also said:
"Subsection (3)(b) gives the Government flexibility should we wish to join a new international agreement that included provisions on cross-border surveillance. It is likely that any such agreement would take a similar approach to Schengen and refer to generic offences".—[Official Report, 29/1/03; col. GC 210.]
The Minister did not take up my invitation at that point to give specific examples of offences that are not crimes under UK law that might be investigated in the UK as a result of the inclusion of this provision in the Bill. With the Extradition Bill coming down the tracks at us at a rate of noughts—I am grateful to the noble Lord for saying that he will hold a briefing meeting on it in just over a week; that is always helpful—I have to ask what will be the effect of this provision. What sorts of generic crimes might we be dealing with here? Will the effect of this provision be to enable foreign police officers to conduct surveillance when in the UK in respect of acts that are not criminal under UK law? I beg to move.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, I have put my name to this amendment. If foreign police officers are to carry out operations in this country, I believe that it must be in relation to a matter that is a crime within this country. I know that that is the Government's intention, as stated by the Minister in the debate in Committee. I also understood him to say that all crimes mentioned in the Schengen agreement are in fact crimes in this country. However, as my noble friend Lady Anelay pointed out, there is the possibility that, because of the power which the Bill gives the Secretary of State to extend the agreements by order, the police force of another country could have power to carry out surveillance of someone in this country, even if only for a short time, for an act that was not a crime in this country. That seems wrong in principle, and, unless there is any objection, we should say so in the Bill.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I, too, support Amendment No. 74. However, I am rather puzzled by the drafting of Amendment No. 87, which the Minister undoubtedly has tabled with good intention. I think that I shall have to read the beginning of the amendment to make the point. It states:
"The condition in this subsection is satisfied if. immediately after the officer enters the United Kingdom … he notifies a person designated by the Director General of the National Criminal Intelligence Service of that fact".
The expression "of that fact" is one that does not often occur in legislation. Indeed, I find it a little difficult to decide to which "fact" the amendment refers. Is it the officer entering the United Kingdom? Is it the notification by the person designated by the Director General of the National Criminal Intelligence Service? Which of those two factors is the fact? Or is it another fact already referred to in the Bill?
5.45 p.m.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, this amendment is about the surveillance of those who are perhaps being surveilled because of an offence in another country that is not an offence in this country. It is a very important point. I know that the Extradition Bill contains a list of 32 offences in relation to the European arrest warrant, but the point is still extremely worrying. We have heard about stealth taxes, but it looks now as though we might be on the road to stealth criminal offences—which is even more serious than stealth taxes.
I have just been thinking about this, and I am intrigued by my own thoughts. We may, of course, have a situation in which a foreign police officer comes over here for five hours for a surveillance operation and says, "This is the time when we have to nab this chap". So he calls in a British policeman. He says to the British policeman, "I want you to arrest this fellow because he has committed such and such an offence". The British policeman, sharp as ever, says, "Yes, but I am afraid that that is not an offence in this country. How can I arrest him for an offence that I do not believe is an offence in this country?" It is intriguing to think of the position in which that will put British policemen. I should like the Minister to think about that for a moment, and perhaps to let me know how this potential difficulty will be resolved.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, it is not only British policemen who may be surprised about the acts for which they have to arrest people. The public will he surprised if they find either a foreign policeman or one of their own police arresting someone for an offence that is not an offence in this country. So that the public may have confidence in this whole procedure, it should be possible to tell them that the offences for which people can be arrested are in fact crimes in this country. If the Minister can tell us that the arrangements in the Bill will not apply, because of an agreement, to offences that this country has not made offences, then, fair enough, Amendment No. 74 may not be necessary. If he cannot do that, I think that the public may be very anxious, as may be the police.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I am confused by the remarks that have just been made, particularly those of the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy. In my view, if the Government enter into an international agreement to which the United Kingdom is a party, that is that—the act is a crime. Is not that agreement binding on all our citizens?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, before responding to the important issues raised in this amendment. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Renton, for notice of the point that he will raise in the next debate. That was most helpful to us, and we shall come to those points shortly.
This amendment seeks to restrict any subsequent extension of these arrangements to agreements other than the Schengen convention. It will mean that if we wanted to enable this type of surveillance to be carried

647
out in respect of another international agreement besides the Schengen convention, we could do so only if the crimes specified within that further agreement were also crimes in the UK. I am aware from the debate in Grand Committee that there is some concern about this subsection, hut, in the Government's view, it strikes the right balance between the need to allow for any new agreement to be brought into effect and proper parliamentary oversight.
As I explained in Committee, subsection (3)(b) as drafted gives the Government the ability, should we wish—I emphasise the words "should we wish"—to join a new international agreement that included provisions on cross-border surveillance. In Committee, the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, asked what kind of offences that were not crimes in the UK might be investigated by foreign officers on our soil as a result of these provisions. At first glance, that seems a valid and challenging question. I think the answer is that the sort of crimes covered by any future agreement would be very similar to those covered by Article 40 of Schengen. They would be serious crimes. We would countenance using the provisions of Clause 82 of the Bill only in relation to serious crimes. We would not, as a matter of policy, agree to that kind of arrangement in respect of petty offences.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords—
Lord Filkin: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, will give me a minute, I shall deal with his point.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am most obliged to the noble Lord for giving way. He said that only serious offences would be caught by the provision we are discussing. But, for example, in Germany there is an offence of holocaust denial which carries a possible prison sentence of two years. That is not a crime in this country. What would be the position if someone were pursued and subjected to surveillance in respect of that kind of crime? Or have I got the matter all wrong?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, as I signalled, I assure the noble Lord. Lord Stoddart, that I shall deal with that point shortly.
As I said, we would seek to use the powers in Clause 82 only in respect of serious crimes. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, may press me further by saying that serious crimes will already be offences in the UK. She may ask, therefore, what is the mischief in her amendment. I suspect that she knows the answer to that question, which is the following. The reason for having this sort of flexibility is, of course, that we prefer to take a generic approach in legislation to one that depends on having harmonisation of offences between countries. In other words, we do not think that having an exact identity of an offence is an appropriate way of considering these issues. I am grateful for the general support from the Benches opposite for that approach. If one looks at the offences
648
to which Article 40.2 of Schengen applies, it will be seen that they are widely drafted but clearly refer to very serious matters.
We expect that any future agreement would take a similar approach. I do not anticipate a situation whereby foreign officers who suspect a person of committing, for instance, an offence of xenophobia, or of holocaust denial, as the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, signalled, would be allowed to conduct this sort of surveillance in the United Kingdom. Those would not be seen as serious offences as a matter of public policy in terms of the United Kingdom's approach. t should also point out that the foreign officers would not conduct investigations in this country, as they would not, of course, have any executive powers. It would simply be a question of surveillance.
An example of the type of crimes that might he considered in addition to those currently covered by Article 40 and discussed in the context of the Schengen convention are organised fraud, smuggling of illegal immigrants, laundering of the proceeds from organised crime, and illicit trafficking in nuclear and radioactive substances. All of those are self-evidently serious crimes. To expect to have an exact identity—in other words, explicit dual criminality—is, in our view, and, I believe, in the view of the Opposition Benches, a flawed approach because, provided one has the generic offence, one is more certain to catch the mischief that one seeks to catch. I emphasise yet again that we are talking about serious crimes in this regard. Any future agreement containing provisions of this nature would also be subject to parliamentary oversight before it could be ratified.
I believe that I have said enough to explain the Government's position. I hope that I have answered the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour. In essence, we are talking about serious crimes and a measure which, in effect, provides flexibility to ensure that one does not allow someone to escape because there is not an exact identity of offence, as that person would be covered by a generic offence. I hope that I have made the Government's position clear.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for providing important clarification with regard to the part of the Bill we are discussing. I am grateful for the support of my noble friends Lord Carlisle, Lord Renton and Lady Carnegy. I am also grateful for the helpful remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart.
I sympathised with the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, when he said that he was becoming confused. The problem with much of the Bill, particularly Clause 82, is that one is trying to follow which parts of the convention and protocols the Government wish to include on the face of the Bill and which parts they prefer to leave out to achieve flexibility, as the Minister repeatedly tells us. We recognise that it is important for the Government to retain some flexibility, although not perhaps too much, while maintaining parliamentary scrutiny when they sign up to agreements with other countries in the future.

649
My noble friend Lady Carnegy made the very important point that however confusing the background to the measures may be, the provisions on the face of the Bill must be clear so that the public and the police can be confident that the provisions of the Bill will be properly put into effect. My noble friend Lord Carlisle also made an important point when he said that we must ensure that the Bill is future proof. That is essential. At the same time we must ensure that we maintain parliamentary scrutiny.
The Minister gave me sufficient assurance to enable me not to have to bring the measure back at Third Reading. At first, I thought that I would have to do that. I shall read his comments carefully in Hansard before I say once and for all that I shall not bring the measure back, but at present I consider it very unlikely. The Minister made some helpful comments with regard to generic offences. His comments with regard to xenophobia and holocaust denial took us much further than our discussion in Grand Committee. With those words, which I hope are encouraging from the Government's point of view, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 75:
Page 55, line 39, at end insert—
"() A foreign police or customs officer carrying out relevant surveillance in the United Kingdom under this section shall ensure that such persons as may be designated by order made by the Secretary of State are immediately informed of the fact that the United Kingdom's border has been crossed."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 75, I wish to speak also to government Amendment No. 87. When discussing the previous group of amendments, I was intrigued that my noble friend Lord Renton, who is an expert on drafting matters, referred to the words "of that fact" in government Amendment No. 87. He made an interesting and important point. I look forward to hearing the Government's response.
Amendment No. 75, which I shall not press, was tabled in order to continue discussion on the arguments I put in Grand Committee. I was concerned about the issue of notification by the police or customs officer who enters the UK. I wished to see on the face of the Bill the requirement that the notification should take place immediately the UK border had been crossed. That is, indeed, a condition of Article 40.2 of the Schengen convention, to which the Minister referred earlier. In Committee, the Government maintained that it would be sufficient for the requirement of immediate notification to be in an order rather than on the face of the Bill. I was not happy with that. I welcome the fact that the Government have changed their mind on the matter and have agreed that that protection should be on the face of the Bill.
When the Minister speaks to his amendment, I should be grateful if he would make plain the definition of that part of the amendment that states,
"after the officer enters the United Kingdom".
Do the Government still intend that that should mean when the person physically sets foot on UK soil rather then when he enters UK territorial waters? That will have a bearing on our debates on later amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I owe an apology to the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, for referring too soon to Amendment No. 87. It is grouped with Amendment No. 75, which my noble friend Lady Anelay has just moved. With his usual courtesy, he did not criticise me for being premature and was kind enough merely to take note of the fact that I had made the point.
Looking back on the matter again, I still think that the expression "of that fact" on the last line of page 3 of the Marshalled List creates some uncertainty. It would help if the noble Lord could explain what it means and to what it refers. Even if he has an explanation, between now and Third Reading he should find some clearer way to deal with the point that he intends to make.
6 p.m.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, as said by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, Amendment No. 87 seeks to introduce to the Bill a condition imposed on cross-border surveillance in Article 40.2(a) of the Schengen convention, so that police and customs officers contact the relevant UK authority immediately on crossing the border. I acknowledge that the amendment is a response to the powerful representations that she and other noble Lords made in our discussions.
The amendment reflects the condition set out in Article 40.2(a) of the Schengen convention, which is that foreign police and customs officers conducting such surveillance must contact the relevant authority in the territory they enter the moment that they cross the border. If they do not, they are breaching the conditions of Schengen. That is not in anyone's interests, as the fundamental principle of Schengen co-operation is respect for national law and for any conditions attached to cross-border work. The experience of the Schengen states is that the conditions are respected. The Government had intended to add the condition in an order, but we listened to the representations made and were happy to accede to those requests.
The noble Baroness asked about when one gets to the United Kingdom. Those words should be given their natural common-sense meaning. Accordingly, we consider that entering the UK is when the foreign officer arrives at a port or airport. For the Eurostar, it is when the train leaves the tunnel and enters Kent.
I shall deal with the courteous question and apology from the noble Lord, Lord Renton. No apology is required, first, because of who he is and the respect in which he is held in the House, and secondly because it is extremely helpful to the Government to get advance warning of questions. Being more serious and turning to the specifics, the fact in question is the fact of entering the United Kingdom. I shall look again at the

651
clause to see whether, on further testing and reflection, we think that it is as clear as it should be, particularly having heard the noble Lord's views. No doubt I shall give him an indication of our view before Third Reading, so that he is aware of our position on it.
Having in essence agreed to the representations made by the noble Baroness in Committee, I hope that there will be support for Amendment No. 87 and no need to press the alternative amendment.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I have no intention of pressing my amendment. I simply want to welcome the government amendment and the commitment of the Minister to consider the drafting again before Third Reading. I would not insist on that, but I am always grateful when the views of my noble friend Lord Renton on drafting are taken to heart by the Government. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 76 not moved.]
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Gould of Potternewton): My Lords, before calling Amendment No. 77, I have to inform noble Lords that if it is agreed to I shall not be able to call Amendments Nos. 78 to 80 for reasons of pre-emption.
[Amendment No. 77 not moved]
Lord Filkin moved Amendment No. 78:
Page 55, line 40, leave out "a" and insert "the"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 84 is aimed at achieving the same effect as the government amendments, which is to ensure that the officer referred to in subsection (5) dealing with civil liability is the one carrying out "relevant surveillance". Amendments Nos. 88 and 90 seek to achieve the same clarity in subsections (6) and (7).
The Government have listened again to the arguments in Grand Committee and tabled amendments to make it clear that the officer referred to in subsection (5) is the one carrying out "relevant surveillance". We consider that the government amendments make the position in the subsection sufficiently clear. In addition, we consider that references to "the officer" in the other subsections are obviously a reference to the foreign officer authorised by the new section. Accordingly, I would suggest that the further amendments proposed by the Opposition are unnecessary. In the circumstances, I hope that the noble Baroness will not press her amendments. I beg to move.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 84, 88 and 90, which are grouped with the government amendments. They aim simply to ask the Government to consider the drafting, as they are intended to clarify the clause itself.
As a result of the government amendments agreed to in Grand Committee, new Section 76A of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, inserted by Clause 82 of the Bill, refers to two types of officer.
652
Those are a "foreign police or customs officer", defined in new Section 76A(9) of the 2000 Act, and a "United Kingdom officer", the definition of which is contained in the government amendment.
I fully accept that the government amendment goes a long way towards achieving a much better drafting of the clause. I have nothing against it. I am certainly as unhappy as my noble friend Lord Renton to add extra words to legislation. I always have his caveat in my ear when I try to do that. However, the words I suggest might assist clarity if the result of the Government's decision to amend the new section is to refer to two different types of officer. My amendments make it absolutely clear that the references to an officer in the relevant subsections are to a foreign police or customs officer, not to a United Kingdom officer.
It might be helpful if I also indicated to the Government and the House that I purposefully did not move my amendments in the preceding group. The Government will respond properly to them. and it would be otiose continually to say, "Yah boo, we got there first". I propose to say no more than one or two words when the Government deal with their Amendments Nos. 79 and 80, to point out issues to which we might want to come back on Third Reading if they have not been resolved before then.
My amendments in this group are merely on minor drafting matters, and I hope that the Government will say that they will look at them again before Third Reading.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I support my noble friend on the amendment. We need to bear in mind that, under the law that has been our law for generations, our own police do not normally carry weapons, but there are exceptional circumstances in which they are entitled to do so. The amendment points out very well that foreign police must be subject to the same conditions if they come to this country. Subsection (4B), proposed in the amendment, makes it abundantly plain, stating
"The permission to carry a firearm referred to in subsection (4A) may only be given in circumstances in which it would be given to a constable acting under the law of the United Kingdom".
We have to ensure that all the police operating in this country, whether our own or police who have come in under special circumstances, are subject to the same law on that important matter. Therefore, I hope that the Government will feel that the amendment is right in principle and clear in its expression.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord is inviting me to speak to the amendment that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, did not move. It is perhaps not right to go into that in detail but I will say that the position is explicitly clear. There is no legal need for that provision. I shall deal with that separately with the noble Lord, Lord Renton. rather than go into detail now.
The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, invited me to consider fill-then I thought that what I had said set out our reasons why we thought that the Bill, as amended

653
by the Government in response to her representations in Committee, was adequate. I do not want to be pig headed, but nor do I want to raise her hopes unduly. We always consider her words carefully and always respond if we believe that there is a need to do so.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Filkin moved Amendment No. 79:
Page 55, line 42, after "if" insert "—

(a) the condition mentioned in subsection (5A) is satisfied;

(b) the officer carries out the surveillance only in places to which members of the public have or are permitted to have access, whether on payment or otherwise; and"

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I said earlier that I wanted to comment briefly on Amendment No. 79 rather than to move and speak at length to Amendment No. 76.
I welcome the fact that the Government changed their mind with regard to putting the condition in the Bill that those carrying out hot surveillance should not enter private property. On this occasion, the Government's drafting is far superior to mine. On the previous amendment, the Government said that they did not want to be boastful but they can be here. They made it perfectly clear that the private property referred to covers every eventuality, including places to which one pays for entry. That was not covered by my amendment.
The Minister may be aware that the Government have not fully taken on board the request I made in Committee because I also wanted to ensure that the person carrying out hot surveillance could not challenge a person or arrest them. I accept the Government's view on arrest as expressed in their letter to me but I am still concerned that there could be a temptation for a person who is carrying out hot surveillance to challenge someone in this country.
I wholeheartedly welcome the government amendment, which is a huge advance on what we had in Committee. I may need to return at Third Reading to the issue of challenge. I should like to talk to the Minister between now and Third Reading to establish whether he can give me further information about challenge, which would obviate the need to return to the issue.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I rise to break my hitherto Trappist silence in this debate to say that we on these Benches also strongly welcome the government amendment, which will include in the Bill the requirement that a foreign officer carrying out surveillance cannot go into a place to which the public do not have access. I agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said about challenging. "Challenge" is not a concept that is recognised, so far as I know, by English law; it is presumably a term of art that arises in relation to procedures that are followed in some, if not all, mainland European countries. If the Minister is able to tell us, I should be
654
interested to know what the concept of challenge involves. We, too, may feel that it is appropriate that that should be included in the Bill: however, that cannot be decided until we know more about it.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, this concession by the Government is very important because of the public perception of what will go on should someone be pursued in their midst. It will be a great help if they know that the person being pursued cannot go anywhere where they cannot go; that will give the public confidence. It will also give the public confidence to know that a foreign policeman will not be doing any challenging—whatever explanation the Minister has for that word—in their midst. These matters are very important and the assurances that it will be possible to give to the public about the Bill will very much repay the trouble that the Government are taking in this regard. It may appear not to matter very much until the time comes, but then it will matter. The public must have confidence in their legislation.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I am very happy to respond to the invitation from the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, to discuss with her the issue of challenge. I should not go into more detail here and now. The House would hold me to be out of order in responding to an amendment that had not been moved. I should also be pleased to find a way of sharing those considerations with the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart.
On Amendment No. 76, it will be a challenge to respond to the challenge of trying to define "challenge" in ways that put the concern of the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, beyond doubt; that is, that there is no risk to the public as a consequence. However, that is for another time.
On Amendment No. 79, as the House knows, in the case of limitations on entering private homes or places, the Government have accepted the arguments for placing conditions in the Bill. Our amendment will give effect to that.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Filkin Lord Filkin moved Amendment No. 80:
Page 55, line 42, leave out "an" and insert "any"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 81:
Page 55, line 44, at end insert—
"(4A) Nothing in this section shall render lawful the carrying of a firearm within the United Kingdom by a foreign police or customs officer except with the permission of either—

(a) the Secretary of State acting personally, or

(b) a chief officer of police acting personally.

(4B)The permission to carry a firearm referred to in subsection (4A) may only be given in circumstances in which it would be given to a constable acting under the law of the United Kingdom.
(4C)Where the permission to carry a firearm is given to a foreign police or customs officer under this section, then that firearm may only be used reasonably and in self-defence."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment seeks to probe further than we could in Committee the issue of the carrying of firearms by foreign officers—police and customs officers. While the Schengen convention specifically allows firearms to be carried by officers conducting a hot surveillance, the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, stressed on several occasions in Grand Committee that foreign police and customs officers carrying out hot surveillance will not be permitted to carry firearms in the United Kingdom, despite the provisions of the Schengen convention which appear to make provision to the contrary. He made it clear at one point that he anticipated that people who tried to carry firearms could be arrested when they entered the United Kingdom.
I make it clear that I do not wish to see firearms carried on streets of the United Kingdom by foreign police officers or customs officers but I do want to ensure that there is clarity in the law in these matters. In particular, I want to ensure that when our officers are exercising their quid pro quo rights of hot surveillance overseas, they are clear about their position and that their lives are not put at risk.
I am grateful to the Minister for his clarification in a letter of 18th February in which he dealt with a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, about whether a blanket prohibition on the carriage of firearms is compatible with the terms of the Schengen convention. He wrote:
"it is our view that a blanket prohibition, rather than a case by case consideration, is permitted by the Convention. This is because the officers conducting the observation must comply with the law of the contracting party…It is illegal for anyone—including overseas police officers—to bring a firearm into the UK, let alone carry it loaded on their person…Furthermore States that already participate in these provisions of the Schengen Convention have made blanket decisions on the type of weapons that may be carried by officers entering their territory that are applied in every case".
I recognise that these are complex operational matters. However, I am troubled about the possibility of the situation arising in which a foreign officer's life might be put at risk because he was operating under cover but was required to surrender his firearm on entering the United Kingdom. I do not want such people to carry arms in the United Kingdom but I am concerned about the practicalities about what happens when they try to obey our laws of not carrying a firearm when he comes here. For example, if I were a foreign officer and masquerading as a member of a criminal gang—that is quite possible—I could hardly explain the need to throw away my gun as I enter the UK; that would be a dead give-away in every sense of the word. I should welcome an assurance from the Government that they had at least considered that possibility when they reflected on our debates in Grand Committee. Can they clarify whether there are any circumstances at all in which they would permit firearms to be brought into the UK by officers carrying out hot surveillance?
Can the Minister also tell the House whether the Government have consulted our European partners who are party to the Schengen convention about their proposed interpretation and whether it is acceptable to them? On an operational level, have the Government
656
liaised with the authorities in other member states who might expect to take advantage of hot surveillance provisions in the future to advise them of the position that the UK will take in respect of the carrying of firearms?
We also need to know whether the Government have had discussions with other EU countries about the position of our own police and Customs officers with regard to travelling abroad and carrying firearms. I beg to move.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, I support my noble friend Lady Anelay on this amendment. In Committee, the Minister said clearly that the powers available to those who carried out surveillance would not in any circumstances allow them to carry guns. But I suggest, as I did in Committee, that one must he realistic.
If people are followed under surveillance in another country in connection with serious offences and the police who carry out the surveillance are armed, surely, in providing the right to carry out that surveillance in this country, it is unreasonable to insist that those police should not be able to be armed. That is particularly so when, as the Minister said, the British police who take over, having been given authority to do so, will, in appropriate circumstances, be armed.
It seems to me that, as my noble friend Lady Anelay said, by requiring a foreign officer to do away with the gun which he considers necessary for his own preservation, one is unnecessarily putting his life at risk when he is carrying out his duty and doing what is allowed under the law. As I understand it, the amendment attempts to put that officer. during the period of what I shall call "hot surveillance-, in the same position as a British officer carrying out the surveillance with authority. I believe that, as a Corm of protection, if for no other reason, we should agree to this amendment to the Bill.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, for sending me the letter to which the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, referred. In view of the facts that he set out in that letter, I do not wish to press any further the suggestion that there can be no valid blanket ban on the carrying of weapons. Given that blanket bans have sometimes been applied by a number of countries over the years, that now seems to be established as the proper interpretation of the convention, and I would not wish to challenge it. Obviously, the point raised specifically by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, is a matter of interest and concern for us. However, I am not sure that the amendment, as currently drafted, covers the situation that she discussed.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I have already spoken prematurely twice this evening. It seemed to me that this amendment had a bearing on an earlier one and that is why I referred to it. It is a very important amendment, and I believe that the crux of the matter lies in proposed new subsection (4B) to which I referred previously. We cannot have foreign police

657
officers coming into this country and using powers that our own police do not have. Therefore, I very much hope that the Government will agree to the amendment.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I believe that the assurances given to us by the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, are sound, valid and acceptable. I am not at all sure that I agree with the aim of the amendment, and I should be loath to agree to it without it being given much further thought.
If it were agreed to, it would put foreign policemen in a different position from that of our own police. Our police may become involved very suddenly in surveillance operations. They are not armed and must apply to their superiors—very high-ranking officers—before that can happen. It is difficult to know how to phrase this, but I believe that it would be entirely wrong to allow foreign policemen to have what I was going to call "preferential treatment", although I do not know whether I should use those words. However, they should not be in a position different from that of our own police or, indeed, different from that of ordinary civilians in this country.
I should he loath to support any amendment which would give foreign policemen—even for a few hours—any advantage or position which our own police would not and should not enjoy. There is considerable opposition to the carrying of arms by the police, not only among the general public but in the police service itself. I do not know how the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, intends to reply but I hope that he will think long and hard before agreeing to the amendment.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I rather find myself agreeing with the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, but I read my noble friend's amendment—at least, I hope that I do—as covering the point that, in effect, we should place foreign policemen in the position that they would find themselves in were they British policemen.
In passing this law, I believe that at the same time we should consider how we wish our special forces to be allowed to operate in other countries when they are in hot pursuit of, say, an Al'Qaeda suspect in a difficult part of the world. It is possible that, under those circumstances, we would wish them to be able to carry firearms, should it be permitted by the laws of that country.
I believe it is entirely appropriate that we should extend to foreign policemen in our country the same facilities as we would wish to be given to our forces operating abroad. Beyond anything else, if other countries were to ban British operatives from carrying firearms, it would pose substantial difficulties for James Bond.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I agree with the generality of the arguments adduced by those who say that police officers should not be armed, save for one thing. I am tempted to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle. I ask my noble friend what would happen if a
658
foreign officer were obliged to join a gang, having no alternative but to do so, and found himself in a difficult position, having had to surrender his weapon. I ask my noble friend whether an exception could be made in those circumstances; otherwise, I believe that he is right in respect of this clause. But I am troubled by the situation revealed by the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I believe I may have indicated in Committee that, of all the interesting amendments tabled to the Bill, this one probably most surprised us. However, as I also said in Committee, we did not believe that, in tabling an amendment which sought to make it possible for foreign officers to carry firearms in the United Kingdom—that is what caused the surprise—the Opposition did so other than for good motives and good reasons.
I shall seek to set out why we believe that the amendment is not right or appropriate. The amendment seeks to create circumstances in which foreign officers would be able to carry their weapons into the UK and use them reasonably and, presumably, in self-defence if the occasion arose. Our position remains the same as in Committee. We are clear that foreign officers will not be able to bring firearms into the UK while conducting cross-border surveillance operations under these provisions. I stress that we are speaking of covert surveillance, not "hot pursuit", whatever that implies in terms of chasing a person to try to arrest them—if they did they would be liable for prosecution. The law at present makes it illegal for anyone to bring a firearm into the UK without the authority of the Home Secretary and an import licence from the DTI.
I accept that the intention behind the amendments is to ensure that officers conducting emergency surveillance are not put at risk by the fact that they will not be armed. I agree that that is an essential consideration, but I do not accept that permitting the carriage of firearms by overseas officers in that way is the best way of protecting either our officers or those from overseas, and I shall explain why.
In circumstances where foreign officers—
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. He referred to bringing firearms into the UK. There is nothing in the amendment about bringing firearms into the UK; it is about carrying them in the UK. I cannot see why an objection to bringing them through Customs should enter into a discussion on the amendment.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I shall not debate semantics with the noble Lord on this point but shall seek to continue my explanation as to why we believe that the thrust of the amendment proposed for good reasons by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, is unnecessary.
In circumstances where foreign officers were following a suspect who was known to be armed, an assessment would need to be made by the relevant UK authorities as to whether the suspect could be

659
reasonably allowed to continue his journey. When foreign officers become aware that an armed and dangerous suspect they are observing is heading towards the UK, it will he in their interests to notify the UK authorities—that is, the National Criminal Intelligence Service—as soon as possible.
The senior commander in the UK with responsibility for assessing risk and authorising the use of firearms in the UK will decide how to handle the operation. He will weigh up all the risks, including the safety of the public and the officers. That is his responsibility. Where the risks are low the UK would take over the surveillance at the earliest opportunity. But where the risks are perceived to be too high for all concerned—these are difficult judgments but they have to he made—the police will stop the suspect at port.
In the Government's view that is a safer strategy than seeking to make it lawful for an authorisation to be given in a hurry by the Secretary of State or a chief officer of police to permit the foreign officers to bring in their firearms in the hope that they could use them safely to protect themselves and the public from a dangerous suspect. We are reinforced in that view because it is also the view of the National Crime Squad, which consulted ACPO on the issue. It was clear that they did not want foreign officers in the UK carrying firearms. That was not from a position of chauvinism but from trying to control the significant risks that follow. I do not need to go into detail on that. The House knows as well as I do of situations where the police have inadvertently shot an innocent member of the public because they thought there was a serious risk. Those are the most tragic of circumstances. Such judgments are terribly difficult to get right. Our police forces are not comfortable with this being the situation when they are not in a position to quality assure or quality control the training and regimes under which other people operate.
How, then, do we deal with the issue? I shall come to that in a moment. As was also pointed out in Committee, these provisions relate to surveillance which will involve a situation where a person is being watched from a discreet distance, not where there is direct contact between the officer and subject.
The situation would be the same for our own armed officers following suspects abroad. If the country to which they were travelling refused to let them carry their weapons, the commander of the UK operation would assess the situation and decide on the basis of the risks whether to arrest the suspect in this country or to allow the officers to proceed without their firearms or not to pursue. Those are the three options on which they would have to make a judgment.
I accept that that might mean that some surveillance operations might be terminated that would otherwise have been able to continue. But, on balance, we are satisfied that that is the right approach and one which commands public confidence.
As to whether we shall be allowed to maintain that policy by our Schengen partners, Article 40 allows participating states to prohibit the use of firearms by
660
law enforcement officers from other states. We intend to take advantage of that. Our position will be clearly set out in the Schengen handbook. We consider that a blanket provision rather than a case-by-case consideration is permitted by the convention. That is because the officers conducting the observation must comply with the law of the contracting party. That is covered by Article 40.3(a). It is illegal for anyone, including overseas police officers, to bring a firearm into the United Kingdom, let alone to carry it loaded on their person without the appropriate authority from the Home Secretary, as I have stated.
Furthermore, states that already participate in these provisions of the Schengen convention haw made blanket decisions on the type of weapons that may he carried by officers entering their territory that are applied routinely in every case. We understand that Norway has taken a decision that it will permit the carriage of firearms only if they are authorised in advance, in effect ruling them out for the sort of urgent cases that we are discussing.
I turn to the question also raised by the noble Baroness about undercover operations, which are different from covert surveillance. Covert surveillance is where a police officer is seeking to follow someone for the purpose of tracking where he is going because he is suspected of committing a serious offence. An undercover operation is when a police officer has infiltrated a criminal gang and is not known to be a police officer but is seeking to be inside that criminal gang, or a terrorist organisation, for the purpose of finding out what is happening and bringing people to justice.
Article 40 of Schengen is not intended to apply to foreign officers who are undercover and have infiltrated a criminal gang. That is clear from the fact that Article 40 permits the state where the surveillance is to continue to take over the surveillance. Clearly, say, a French officer who has infiltrated a drugs gang could not be replaced by UK officers when he enters the UK. Similarly, many of the conditions in Article 40.3 of the Schengen convention which attach to surveillance simply could not apply to undercover work.
The use of undercover officers in a foreign country is covered by international agreements, which are agreed by the international undercover working group and which set out the framework for operating an undercover officer in another country. The use of a UK undercover officer and vice versa is always agreed in advance with the host country and the laws of the relevant country are always followed. We have never authorised them to carry arms into the United Kingdom, nor vice versa. I stress that the Bill does not deal with undercover work but with covert surveillance.
Finally, have there been discussions with other EU states on firearms? There were discussions when the UK agreed to sign up to the Schengen convention. Further discussions will take place on a law enforcement basis in the next few months when the Bill becomes law. I hope that I have put a substantial

661
amount on the record and explained why we do not believe that this is a right approach to take to this sensitive issue.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who took part in this debate on what the Minister rightly said is a sensitive issue.
I have always made clear that we on these Benches are not in favour of foreign officers—Customs and police—carrying guns. However, we believed the debates needed to take place in order to tease out how the safety of both the public and the officers was to be maintained. Such safety must be paramount. I was intrigued by the Minister's explanation that persons coming here carrying out covert surveillance would be liable to prosecution if they carried guns into this country. My noble friend Lord Lucas raised the issue that this is not just a case of carrying guns into the country but that once here, a person might pick up a gun. Therefore, it is a matter of carrying guns wherever they come from.
I was intrigued by the explanation given by the Minister that there would then be a discretion as to whether the person would be prosecuted. I understood him to say that it would be considered on a case-by-case basis and that a pragmatic approach would have to be taken as to whether prosecution would take place. I shall carefully read the Minister's words in Hansard There is much to support him in making the point that there should be a pragmatic opportunity to decide whether someone will be prosecuted. However, one is then faced with the difficulty of a procedure that is opaque; it is not clear either to the public or to the police, here and overseas, whether or not someone could be prosecuted. Of course, we are always keen to try to put on the statute book legislation that has clarity regarding liability for prosecution and ultimate prosecution. One should not be open to an offence and then find that one is not prosecuted for some reason.
That is a sensitive issue. I should like to look carefully at Hansard between now and Third Reading. I do not wish to bring the matter back as an amendment. I hope that that is helpful to the Minister. But we need to look closer at the matter. I do not know whether the Minister wishes to reply at this moment.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I shall also look closely at what I said. I do not recollect—I certainly did not intend—giving the impression that there would be any circumstances in which foreign police officers coming into this country would be allowed or permitted to bring in their firearms. I hope I have set out our clear position: they will not be allowed to do so. We expect them to abide by, first, the laws of the land, and, secondly, the mutual co-operation that exists between police forces as regards these measures. The position would be absolutely clear because it would be set out in the Schengen handbook. It would define exactly what were the operational practices for foreign officer under covert surveillance, seeking to enter into the United Kingdom. They will not be allowed to bring in their guns.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister. I shall again look carefully at Hansard. I agree: I thought he made it clear that there should be no permission to bring guns into the country, but it looked as though the prosecution might not necessarily go ahead. We need to look at that specific issue.
I thought it very helpful of the Minister to put on the record the definitions of undercover work and covert surveillance and to make clear the gulf between the two. That was an important addition that we did not have in Committee. I welcome his explanation of the fact that Article 40 is not intended to include undercover work. That saves many problems that we might have had on later amendments today. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: My Lords, before calling Amendment No. 82, I have to inform your Lordships that if Amendment No. 82 is agreed to I cannot call Amendments Nos. 83 to 86.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 82:
Page 56, leave out lines I to 3.
The noble Baroness: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 82, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 85, 86, 89 and 95. I use this rather large and complex group of amendments to ask the Government to give some clear signposting to the public and their advisers regarding what a UK resident could do in order to get redress if he suffers damage as a result of an action by a police or customs officer who has come over to the UK in order to carry out covert surveillance.
Since these are complicated matters, I have tried to put together as many amendments as possible so that the Government can try to give a full picture rather than my coming backwards and forwards on little parts. On Report, that is quite difficult. It is much better to put it all together. In that spirit, I—rather unusually for the Official Opposition and for me—gave the Home Office some advance warning of the kind of questions that I would ask. So I shall be slightly longer than normal on the matter. But it means, following what I am sure will be a full explanation by the Government, that I shall not have to press the matter today. One hopes that we will not need to return to it as it is a matter of explanation.
Under subsection (5) of new Section 76A of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000, the Government propose:
"An officer is not to be subject to any civil liability in respect of any conduct of his which is incidental to any surveillance that is lawful by virtue of subsection (4)".
Instead, under amendments to the Police Act 1997 contained in what is now Clause 84 of the Bill, the director general of NCIS is still liable, according to paragraph 163 of the Explanatory Notes,
"to cover the cost of any damage foreign surveillance officers may commit, or legal action to which they may be subject".
Amendments Nos. 82, 85, 86 and 95 seek an explanation from the Government of why different wording is used in these two provisions.
Under Clause 82, the foreign officer is not to be subject to any civil liability in relation to conduct of his,
"which is incidental to any surveillance",
but, under Clause 84, the director general of NCIS will be liable for unlawful conduct on the part of the officer which takes place,
"in the course of carrying out the surveillance".
They are different words. I am sure that the Government have chosen their words carefully in relation to the provisions. We need them to explain more fully why they have chosen different words. Otherwise, the lawyers will certainly get at them whenever there are any claims in the future.
What happens if a foreign officer does a tortious act which is "incidental" to the lawful surveillance but is not done "in the course of carrying out" the surveillance? Presumably, the Government think that such an act could happen because they have used two different terms. In such a case, the protection of new Section 75A(5) from civil liability for the foreign officer applies, so he is not liable and the director general of NCIS is not liable either. Is there, therefore, no remedy as neither the officer nor NCIS would be liable?
On comparing the wording of the two provisions, my immediate thought was—perhaps an obvious one—that the foreign police or Customs officer carrying out the surveillance might drop a cup of hot coffee over an innocent bystander on a rest break while not watching the suspect. The drinking of the coffee might be "incidental" to the surveillance, but surely it is not done "in the course of carrying out" the surveillance itself if it is done while the officer is not watching the suspect.
These are technical points. However, if the provisions were ever tested in the courts—and it is possible that they would be—no doubt the lawyers on one side would say that if no difference in meaning was intended by Parliament, it would have used exactly the same wording in each case. I hope the Minister will clarify that issue.
Amendment No. 89 also covers issues of how individuals might obtain redress for damage but from a different viewpoint. It seeks to clarify the position of what happens if the surveillance takes place inside UK territorial waters but not on UK soil. I was grateful to the Minister for his earlier explanation about notification needing to take place only when the officers land on UK soil. What happens when someone carrying out covert—not undercover—surveillance is in UK territorial waters?
I give an example. I shall be more athletic than I was last time. I am a windsurfer off Sandbanks near the entrance to Poole Harbour and I am acting appropriately. So I am not off course and I am behaving okay. I am hit by a small boat which is wholly tinder the control of the French or other overseas
664
police or Customs officers who have entered UK territorial waters to continue surveillance on a suspect. It is covert surveillance, not undercover, and they are controlling the boat. They may or may not intend to land on UK soil.
At this stage they have not made any decision about whether or not to notify the UK authorities of their intention to continue their hot surveillance on UK soil. They carry out surveillance from the boat. After all, electronic surveillance means that they can do that very well indeed. But the officers are either negligent or reckless about their control of the boat, which causes me damage. Can I sue? Whom do I sue, and how?
Is there any difference if they are merely careless and not negligent or reckless? Is there any difference if they have decided to continue hot surveillance on UK soil and they have notified the UK authorities of that?
These points are all the more important because it appears that the Government do not yet know how our EU partners will interpret the Schengen convention in this respect when our own officers go overseas. I hope that the Government will be able to clarify these matters further today. I beg to move.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, although my noble friend Lady Anelay has said that her amendments are probing ones, she has raised one or two very important matters. I wish to refer to only one. In so doing, one must bear in mind that this clause, perhaps more than any other, is the result of the Schengen agreement. Amendment No. 82 seeks to leave out subsection (5). It states:
"An officer is not to be subject to any civil liability",
in these circumstances. That could be very hard. on individuals who, free from any blame, happen to suffer as a result of legitimate action taken by the foreign police who have entered the country. It could cause great hardship. I am a little worried about the refusal to accept civil liability in these circumstances. 'The problem would not arise very often, but when it did it could cause great hardship to individuals. While agreeing with my noble friend in the very penetrating comments that she made, above all she is right to refer to Clause 82(5).
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, has made a number of points and asked a number of questions. I shall be interested to hear the answers. In Grand Committee we had a debate about this matter. We were worried about what civil redress people might have who had been injured in some way. We were assured that redress would be achieved through the director-general. That is fair enough as far as it goes.
I wish to raise one point, which is the conduct of the surveillance officers in this country. They should not be in a superior position to our own police. If there is a complaint against any of our own police that complaint goes to the Police Complaints Authority. The result of its findings may very well have a bearing on any claim which is made against the police.

665
It seems to me that there is no provision for foreign officers conducting operations in this country to be investigated. Therefore, that not only puts them in a superior position to our own police officers, but it could also hurt the position of a complainant suing the director-general because of the activities of a foreign surveillance officer. That point should be addressed both from the point of view of the British police and of British civilians who may be injured during surveillance operations by a foreign policeman.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, my noble friend will tell me if I am right, but if a foreign officer misbehaves there is provision by virtue of a complaint being made to the police force affecting the individual. So far as I know, that miscreant is not above the law. I believe profoundly that it is possible for the complaint to be registered. I would like to know whether I am right or wrong about that.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I share my noble friend's concerns in this area. As we have seen recently in South Africa, it is possible for even the best informed foreign intelligence services to get things completely wrong and to cause considerable damage to an innocent citizen. Some of the things done in the course of directed and intrusive surveillance are capable of causing extreme damage. If one sets a bug in another's computer in order to tap into what is being done, if things go wrong one is capable of messing up the entire computer system and possibly causing a great deal of damage. If the person subjected to the search is innocent, it is right that he or she should have redress.
I hope that that matter is contained somewhere in the provisions of the Bill. I do not see it, having read the words I have been directed to by my noble friend. It is very important that a British citizen should be no worse off than he or she would be if it were a British constable making a mess of things than if it were a French constable doing so.
If there is civil damage caused by acts which are lawful because they fall within the activities allowed by the Bill, and a computer system is destroyed or a surveillance device sets fire to something valuable and uninsured, it is reasonable that there should be redress for that. I cannot see how Clause 84 in any way offers that kind of protection because it offers protection only for unlawful acts.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, for the intelligent grouping of these amendments so that we can have one complex discussion rather than a sequence of them. I also offer my condolences to her on her recent accident. The response will take some time, but it is better that I make it now in the hope that that might save us time later on. I hope the House will bear with me.
This is a complex area and it may be helpful if I initially explain why we need the provisions in Clause 82(5) and Clause 84 on civil liability for overseas officers and the different circumstances that they address. The purposes of these two clauses are very
666
different. The provisions in Clause 82(5) are aimed at ensuring that civil liability does not arise in relation to the conduct of foreign officers conducting emergency surveillance for up to five hours where that conduct would be incidental to the surveillance. By this we mean conduct that is inextricably associated with the surveillance to the extent that it is effectively unavoidable if the surveillance, which would have to be lawful, is to continue.
An example would be if the officers needed to follow a suspect into a supermarket car park. As they would not be shopping they would be technically committing trespass, but they would have to do that to continue the surveillance. I must stress absolutely that "incidental conduct" as defined by RIPA covers an extremely narrow set of circumstances. It would not cover any conduct that was not essential to continue the surveillance.
Clause 84, by contrast, is intended to provide an avenue of redress for the victim of damage, other than damage arising from incidental conduct, caused during the emergency surveillance period. Clause 84 would apply, for example, where the foreign surveillance officer crashed a car into the perimeter wall of a factory thereby causing damage to the wall. That is a case of accidental damage. The victim of the damage would then need to know whom to approach for compensation. The clause provides that liability would fall on the director-general of the National Criminal Intelligence Service.
There is clearly concern as to whether there is an avenue for redress for those affected by incidental conduct. Neither Clause 84 nor Clause 82(5), which also deals with civil liabilities, provides for liability to be carried by the director-general of NCIS, or indeed anyone else, in relation to conduct by foreign officers which is simply incidental to lawful surveillance. This is no different from the existing situation for domestic officers under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. To make special provision for incidental conduct in these circumstances would mean treating foreign officers differently from domestic officers, which would not make sense.
But I do not believe that that should be a cause for concern. As I have explained before, incidental conduct covers an extremely narrow set of circumstances. It is difficult to imagine how it might give rise to a claim for damages. Any conduct that did give rise to a claim—for instance, the example given in Committee of an officer from France driving on the wrong side of the road and knocking someone down—would be classed as accidental not incidental. Under Clause 84, there would be an avenue of redress through the courts to the director-general of NCIS.
In the unlikely event of damage occurring as a result of incidental conduct, it would be for the courts to determine whether particular conduct could be considered incidental, and, consequently, whether damages should be sought. We would expect the courts to take a narrow view of what might constitute incidental conduct.

667
The key to Schengen cross-border surveillance arrangements is reciprocity. We need to provide foreign officers with the same protection as that afforded to UK officers undertaking domestic surveillance. Clause 84 provides for that. Article 43 of the Schengen convention sets out arrangements on civil liabilities so that we can expect reciprocal arrangements for our officers operating abroad in similar circumstances.
I realise that Amendment No. 89 is intended to clarify situations in which damage arises when foreign officers are in a boat off the U K coast; but it would have the reverse effect. It would be unworkable in practice, so the Government cannot accept it. I noted during our discussions in Committee that it was hard for those crossing into the UK by sea to know exactly when they had entered UK waters. There are no visible markers. This amendment would simply add to the tasks of officers carrying out surveillance, who would be forced to spend time and energy trying to find out whether they were in UK waters.
In the unlikely event that damage should arise in such a situation, it would be for the courts to decide where liability lay. The circumstances in which liability for purely incidental conduct might arise are extremely narrow. Damage to a passing windsurfer would not fall within the definition.
We intend to interpret the Schengen convention requirements about the border in a way that protects the interests of the UK and is readily understood by everyone who would use the cross-border arrangements in the fight against crime. For that reason, we have indicated that we regard the border as having been crossed when the officers arrive at a port or airport For those reasons, I do not think that the amendments would add clarity.
I shall deal now with the senior wrangler questions that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, asked. The first related to the case of the windsurfer hit by the French officers' boat off Sandbanks. If the officers had not landed, their surveillance might not have been covered by new Section 76A, on the basis that they had not entered the UK. There would, therefore, he no question of the provisions on incidental liability in Section 76A(5) applying. In that case, the windsurfer would have to sue the French authorities. As the accident happened in Poole harbour, the case could be brought in the English courts. By contrast, if an English windsurfer had been hit by the French officers' boat off a beach in Normandy, the case would have to be brought in the French courts.
However, when considering travel by such means, a court might take a different view on when an officer is deemed to have entered UK territory. It might say that being close to the UK coast constituted entering the UK. Accordingly, NCIS could be sued instead of the French authorities. In practice, as NCIS can reclaim any damages that it might have to pay to the windsurfer, it is unlikely that it would argue that technically it was not liable. It would not be in accordance with the spirit or intent of the legislation to do so. Rather, we would expect NCIS to handle the
668
claim. In any event, if such a situation were deemed to come under new Section 76A, damage to a windsurfer would not count as incidental. It could not be argued that the surveillance officer had to damage the windsurfer to continue his surveillance. He would have had a choice, therefore the damage would be deemed accidental. The liability provisions of Clause 84 would thus apply.
In summary, whether or not the foreign officers had entered the UK, it would be open to the windsurfer to pursue a claim for damages through the UK courts. The only question is whether the claim could he against only the French authority or whether he could sue NCIS instead. In practice, the prudent course for any solicitor would be to advise his client to sue both the French authority and the NCIS, and to let them and the court decide who would defend the claim. I emphasise that Clause 84 does not remove liability from the French officers; it merely makes NCIS liable as well, thus enabling British citizens to obtain easier and earlier redress.
The noble Baroness asked whether there was any difference if the officers were merely careless, not negligent. Careless behaviour would not count as incidental. Incidental conduct, in the context of surveillance, means conduct necessary for the surveillance to continue. Carelessness, negligence and recklessness would all fall outside the definition. Obviously, the reason for the accident might affect liability. For example, if the windsurfer was at fault, neither NCIS nor the French authority would be liable.
The noble Baroness also asked whether there would be any difference if the foreign officers had decided to continue covert surveillance on UK soil and had notified the UK authorities of their decision. In that case, they would fall within the automatic authorisation of new Section 76A, making the director-general of NCIS responsible for any civil liability claim. Careless or reckless behaviour would not count as incidental conduct.
I think it was the noble Baroness who asked about the position where damage is caused on UK soil by an off-duty foreign officer. Clause 84 would allow the victim to pursue a claim for damages through the courts against the DG of NCIS, provided that at the time the foreign officer was conducting surveillance under Section 76A. If the foreign officer was off duty—for example, because the surveillance had finished and he was returning to France—any damage he caused would fall outside Clause 84. It would be a private matter between the civilian and the French authorities, just as it would be if the officer had been on holiday in the UK and had caused damage to a UK citizen's property or interests.
A question was asked about the difference between Clauses 82 and 84, and the impact of that. The provisions in Clause 82 on incidental conduct are intended to enable foreign officers to do things that would otherwise be unlawful. They do so by making incidental conduct lawful—for example, certain trespass is deemed lawful. Clause 84 has no effect on

669
the circumstances in which liability will or will not arise. It does not make lawful activities unlawful or otherwise unlawful activities lawful. It simply provides that, where a foreign officer could be sued for damages, NCIS can be sued instead. It is intended simply to make it easier for the claimant.
Slopping coffee on a passer-by would not count as incidental conduct, as it would not have been necessary to continue the surveillance. It would be possible to lodge a claim under Clause 84.
The noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, asked a good question about the Police Complaints Authority. Claimants will not be able to apply to the Police Complaints Authority, as it covers only domestic police officers. But it will be possible for them to complain to the independent tribunal established by RIPA, which can award damages. Any misbehaviour by foreign officers would be referred to their forces, which could jeopardise future operations. It would be for the officers' force to take other sanctions against them for misconduct in those circumstances.
Anyone who thinks that this House does not carry out proper scrutiny should read the debate on these amendments. I hope that, when the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, has had an opportunity to read my response, which is of almost prolix length, she will find it helpful. If not, I am sure that she will signal to me in one of the many ways open to her.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. I do not believe that his response was prolix. All the matters dealt with needed to be clarified, simply because at some stage people will get hurt and will need to know how they may seek redress.
It was particularly important that the noble Lord assisted the House by clarifying the distinction between "incidental" behaviour and "accidental" behaviour, which was unclear in Committee. In particular, I was struck by his further explanation of "incidental", tying it so narrowly to something that is inextricably bound up with the surveillance. He said that the actions would have had to be effectively unavoidable. The noble Lord also commented that he would expect the courts to take a narrow view. All those points focused our minds carefully on actions that he said would otherwise have been unlawful, but which the Bill will render lawful.
I shall need to look carefully at the noble Lord's explanation between now and Third Reading to see whether other issues need to be drawn out. But he has given me the answers that I needed. I may not have asked all the right questions; I do not fault his answers.
I was intrigued by the noble Lord's treatment of the position where someone is carrying out covert surveillance while in territorial waters. I will look carefully at his comments, which were particularly helpful. He commented that it was difficult to know when one was in territorial waters, because there are no visible markers. He is right; there is no marker bobbing up and down to signal entry to the UK. But
670
anyone carrying out proper navigation will have charts. As the noble Lord is aware, statutory instruments lay down carefully territorial boundaries—otherwise my noble friends from Scotland might have a few words to say about Scottish oil, and who might take it. The noble Lord probably has gone as far as possible in clarifying these matters, but I need to check that I have not missed anything, and I shall take care of that.
With the assistance of my noble friends we have had some good debates on the amendments to Clause 82. I said that they were all intended to be probing amendments. It may be helpful to the House if I state at this stage that it will not be appropriate for me to move Amendment No. 93, which seeks to insert a requirement for a rather different kind of annual report. I wish to reflect carefully on the Minister's answers in regard to the amendments to Clause 82 before I consider whether it will be necessary to continue with Amendment No. 93, in its current or an amended form. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Filkin Lord Filkin moved Amendment No. 83:
Page 56, line 1, leave out "An" and insert "The"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 84 to 86 not moved.]
Lord Filkin Lord Filkin moved Amendment No. 87:
Page 56, line 3. at end insert—
"(5A) The condition in this subsection is satisfied if. immediately after the officer enters the United Kingdom—

(a) he notifies a person designated by the Director General of the National Criminal Intelligence Service of that fact; and

(b) (if the officer has not done so before) he requests an application to be made for an authorisation under Part 2, or the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Scotland) Act 2000, for the carrying out of the surveillance."

On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments. Nos. 88 to 90 not moved.]
Lord Filkin Lord Filkin moved Amendments Nos. 91 and 92:
Page 56. leave out lines 21 to 25.
Page 56. line 27, at end insert—
""United Kingdom officer" means—

(a) a member of a police force;

(b) a member of the National Criminal Intelligence Service;

(c) a member of the National Crime Squad or of the Scottish Crime Squad (within the meaning of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (Scotland) Act 2000);

(d) a customs officer"

On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 93 not moved.]
Clause 83[Assaults on foreign officers]:
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 94:
Page 56, line 38, at end insert—
"(4) When sentencing a person for an offence of violence not listed in subsections (1) to (3) that is committed against a person carrying out surveillance in the United Kingdom under the inserted section 76A of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (c. 23), the court shall treat the person carrying out the surveillance as if he were acting as a constable in the execution of his duty."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the amendment relates to the imposition of penalties on persons who are convicted of assaulting foreign police or Customs officers who are carrying out covert surveillance under the provisions of new Section 76A of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 as inserted by Clause 82 of the Bill.
Clause 83 provides that, for the purposes of the summary offence of assaulting a constable in England and Wales, in Scotland and in Northern Ireland, a foreign police or Customs officer who is carrying out the hot surveillance is to be treated as if he were acting as a constable in the execution of his duty. That means that a person who committed such an assault on a foreign officer could be charged with the offence of assaulting a constable under the law of the relevant part of the United Kingdom. While, certainly in England and Wales, the offence of assaulting a constable carries the same maximum penalty as common assault—namely, six months' imprisonment—it is more likely to attract a custodial sentence than common assault because of the way that it is dealt with in the Magistrates' Association guidelines for sentencing.
In Grand Committee, I asked the Government about the absence of any reference to other, more serious, offences of violence which might be charged where an assault was committed against a foreign officer. For example, if someone were simply to punch a foreign officer, causing no injury, it is likely that he or she will he charged with the offence of assaulting a constable under the Police Act 1996—which, of course, carries a maximum sentence of six months. But, if the person causes serious injury to the foreign officer, or attacks him with a weapon causing such injury, then it is likely that he or she will be charged with a more serious offence under Sections 18, 20 and 47 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861—that is to say, wounding or causing grievous bodily harm with intent, the basic offence of wounding or inflicting grievous bodily harm or the offence of assault occasioning bodily harm. Do the Government intend that those who assault foreign police officers who are conducting hot surveillance should be dealt with as if they had assaulted a UK police officer when they are charged with those more serious offences as well as when they commit minor assaults?
I recognise that there is no separate offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm to a police officer or of wounding a police officer under the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, and that the fact that a police officer had been assaulted will instead be taken into account as an aggravating factor by the
672
sentencing court. But, as I read the Bill, the Government are saying that those who commit minor assaults on foreign officers acting under the provisions inserted by Clause 82 are to be charged with assault on a constable, which carries a much greater risk of custody than common assault, but they are not making any corresponding provision in relation to the aggravating factors which should be taken into account when sentencing takes place for a more serious offence of violence with which such persons may be charged.
The amendment seeks to provide that, in cases where a foreign police or Customs officer was assaulted and his or her assailant was charged with one of the more serious offences of violence not referred to in Clause 83, the assailant would be treated by the court as if he or she had assaulted a UK police officer.
That is what the Government appear to intend should happen. In his letter to me dated 18th February, the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, stated:
"We would not expect such offences to be regarded as being any different from offences involving UK officers conducting surveillance. Article 42 of Schengen states that officers conducting surveillance under Article 40 on the territory of another Member State shall be treated as officers of that Member State in respect of offences committed by or against them".
That is fine—I agree with those sentiments—but. as far as I can see, there is nothing to that effect on the face of the Bill, other than what is presently in Clause 83, which refers only to the summary offence of assault.
I am seeking to give the Government an opportunity to set out their position in response to the points that I have made, and to ensure that people who carry out serious assaults on foreign police or Customs officers are appropriately dealt with. I beg to move.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, it is an interesting amendment. Having had a lot of judicial experience in criminal cases as a relief judge at the Old Bailey, as a recorder and in other ways, I am a little doubtful about requiring a court to consider a particular matter, because it may cause it to disregard other relevant matters. I hope that I am not being obstinate or difficult in saying that.
I am afraid that there needs to be one small drafting amendment. If the court is to treat the person carrying out the surveillance as if he were "acting as a constable", the question arises of whether a constable would have acted differently from a sergeant or an inspector. Therefore, if I may say so with deep respect to my noble friend, the word "constable" should be replaced by the words "police officer".
Lord Filkin: My Lords, these issues were raised initially in Grand Committee. I undertook to consider them further, and I wrote to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, on 18th February. I explained that we would not expect such offences to be regarded as being any different from offences involving UK officers conducting surveillance. In other words, as I will amplify, we expect that foreign officers conducting

673
authorised covert surveillance in the circumstances we are talking about will have exactly the same status and defence in law as a UK officer.
Article 42 of Schengen states that officers conducting surveillance under Article 40 on the territory of another member state shall be treated as officers of that member state in respect of offences committed by or against them. The thrust of what the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, is saying is "and so they should be".
Let me explain why we believe that to be the case. Clause 83 provides that the special protection from assaults given to constables under the Police Act 1996 shall be extended to foreign officers conducting surveillance under these clauses. However, UK statute does not give constables special protection for more serious assaults. Rather, statute treats them in the same way as members of the public, albeit the fact that the victim is a constable may be taken into account by trial judges on sentencing. Accordingly, to ensure that we are four-square with UK provision, the Bill makes no further provision for foreign officers, nor is it right to do so. A sentencing discretion is a matter for the courts to decide in each case.
Therefore, in the unlikely event of a serious attack on a foreign officer, the offence will be treated in the same way as an assault on a UK officer. For example, the attacker could be charged with actual bodily harm or grievous bodily harm and it would be for the judge to decide the sentence and whether to take into account that the victim was a foreign officer conducting surveillance under new Section 76A.
The further advantage of Article 42 of the Schengen convention is that if a UK officer carrying out surveillance abroad is assaulted, he could expect to have the same protection in law as an officer of the country in which he was operating at the time of the assault. Therefore, Clause 83 already meets the purpose of the amendment to ensure that there is proper protection for officers carrying out this work, although we expect cases of confrontation to be extremely rare given the nature of covert surveillance work.
In response to the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Renton, Section 89 of the Police Act 1996 uses the term "assaults on constables". It states:
"Any person who assaults a constable in the execution of his duty, or a person assisting a constable in the execution of his duty. shall be guilty of an offence".
The term is used in the Act and I therefore expect it to be a generic term that covers all police officers. If I am wrong on that conjecture, I shall write to the noble Lord accordingly.
For those reasons, I hope that I have explained both how the measures in Clause 83 implement the Schengen convention and also ensure that there is no distinction between foreign officers and UK police officers in these respects.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, I am grateful to him for pointing out the
674
previous example of the use of "constable". However, that was in rather different circumstances, was it not, from those which could arise under the Bill?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, it would be best if I reflect on that and respond in a more detailed note.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for reassurance that foreign police/Customs officers, who may be subject to serious assault, would be in a no worse position than our own police/Customs officers. Of course, we hope that none would be subject to assault but, considering the dangerous operations in which they are likely to be involved, it is a possibility. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 84 [Liability in respect of foreign officers]:
[Amendment No. 95 not moved.]
Schedule 4 [Terrorist property: freezing orders]:
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 96:
Page 66, line 12, after "1 1A" insert "25A, 41A"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this group of amendments makes provision for Scotland and Northern Ireland for the freezing of terrorist assets. The provisions are comparable to those made by the Bill for England and Wales. Any differences for Scotland reflect the different Scottish legal system, but the overall effect will be the same as for England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The other amendments are technical amendments, necessary to ensure the full application of the provisions to Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Amendment No. 96 provides for Section 123(2)(i) of the Terrorism Act to refer to the Scottish and Northern Irish provisions, as well as to those in England and Wales. Amendment No. 97 will amend paragraph 3 of Schedule 4 to the Bill in order to clarify that the changes that that paragraph introduces will apply only to England and Wales.
Finally, Amendment No. 109 ensures that the insolvency provisions in paragraphs 45 to 53 of Schedule 4 to the Terrorism Act will apply also to the Scottish and Northern Irish provisions, as well as to those in England and Wales. Amendment No. 109 achieves that. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 97:
Page 66, line 13, leave out from "In" to ", after" and insert "Part I of Schedule 4 (forfeiture orders: England and Wales)"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 98:
Page 66, line 27. leave out "11D(3)" and insert "11D"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a new group. Amendments Nos. 98, 100 and 101 will make it easier for the Secretary of State to ensure that overseas

675
freezing orders can be enforced under the schedule only if they relate to the proceeds or the instrumentalities of terrorism.
Currently, paragraph 11D(2) requires property to be "terrorist property" as defined by Section 14 of the Terrorism Act before it can be frozen by an overseas freezing order. In most cases, that will mean that the Secretary of State will have to decide whether the property is likely to be used for the purposes of terrorism under Section 14(1)(a) of the Terrorism Act.
On reflection. the Government believe that this could put the Secretary of State into a difficult position. Depending on how the issuing state has transposed the framework decision, its court might have to be satisfied only that there is a good, arguable case that the property to be frozen is likely to be used for the purposes of terrorism. However, the Secretary of State must be satisfied that the property was likely to be used for the purposes of terrorism. That could mean that the Secretary of State could have to apply a stricter test, even though he is likely to have less information available to him than the court in the requesting state.
Having given this matter serious consideration and particularly in the light of the helpful debate stimulated by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, in Grand Committee, it appeared that a different approach would be better. These amendments provide that, for an order to be an overseas freezing order. it must have been made by an overseas court on the grounds that the court considers, first, that the frozen property is likely—within the meaning of the framework decision—to be used for the purpose of a listed offence; and, secondly, that the action constituting the offence would be an act of terrorism as defined in the Terrorism Act.
It is for each state to interpret "considers" in its own implementing legislation. Our amendments will leave it to the overseas court to decide what it considers the property to be, using whatever definition of that word the issuing state has decided to adopt. The Secretary of State will still have to decide whether the act constituting the listed offence would amount to terrorism, as defined by our law. However, he should be able to do this quite easily on the basis of the certificate, which will give the nature and legal classification of the relevant offence. These amendments will make the process of identifying an overseas freezing order simpler and less contentious.
Turning to the final two amendments, Amendment No. 106 clarifies the circumstances in which the High Court can postpone giving effect to an overseas order. Paragraph 11 F(b) of Schedule 4 to the Bill is designed to cover cases where the assets have already been frozen by another court. Our intention is that the court will be able to postpone execution if the assets are subject to a restraint order under Section 41 of the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002.
The current text of paragraph 11F(b) reflects Clause 23(1)(b) and allows postponement where, due to another court order in criminal proceedings, the property may not be removed from the United
676
Kingdom. While an order under Section 41 of the 2002 Act will prevent assets being removed from the United Kingdom, we do not consider that this is the best wording to use in the context of the freezing of terrorist assets. While evidence will be frozen under Chapter 2 of Part 1 of the Bill with a view to it being sent abroad, assets will be frozen under Schedule 4 with a view to their confiscation in the United Kingdom. Therefore, sending them abroad is not really the issue.
A restraint order under Section 41 of the Proceeds of Crime Act prevents the restrained property being "dealt with". The amendment reflects that wording, replacing the reference to the assets being removed from the United Kingdom with a simple reference to an order preventing them from being "dealt with". We formed the view that this is a better way of expressing our intention.
Amendment No. 107 proposes a minor change to paragraph 11G(4), which contains the grounds on which the court will be able to cancel registration of an overseas order. The addition of,
"or to the extent that",
to paragraph 11G(4) will give the court the flexibility partially to revoke an order. That would be necessary if, for example, the overseas court were to unfreeze part of the defendant's assets.
I believe that that lengthy explanation explains the technicalities involved. I beg to move.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I welcome Amendment No. 100. It is an improvement on the formulation of the test for overseas freezing orders contained in the amendments agreed in Grand Committee.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 99:
Page 67, line 16, leave out "that there is a good arguable case"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an amendment to Schedule 4, the new schedule introduced by the government amendment in Grand Committee. It introduces new provisions in Schedule 4 to the Terrorism Act 2000. They provide for the making of freezing orders relating to certain property which may be terrorist property.
Paragraph 11B of Schedule 4 to the 2000 Act contains provisions in relation to England and Wales for a domestic freezing order; that is, an order made by the English court to freeze property in a participating country. Similar provisions have been put forward for Scotland and Northern Ireland in Amendment No. 108, which has been spoken to but not yet agreed.
The procedure involves the making of a certificate by the High Court. It may make a certificate under paragraph 11 B(2) of Schedule 4 if,
"it is satisfied that there is a good arguable case that the property is likely to be used for the purposes of a listed offence".
As we know, a "listed offence" means a terrorist offence. Paragraph 11D covers overseas freezing orders; that is, an order made by the court in a participating country in relation to property in the

677
United Kingdom. Paragraph 11D(3)—it is about to be amended in Amendment No. 100—makes it a condition of the overseas freezing order that it has been made because the appropriate authority considers that,
"the property is likely to be used for the purposes of a listed offence".
Here, that is a terrorist offence.
It is apparent that the tests for a domestic and an overseas freezing order differ. The test for the domestic freezing order is that there is a good arguable case that the property is likely to be used for a terrorist offence. No lawyer would regard the court believing that there is a good arguable case that the property is likely to be used for a terrorist offence as having the same meaning as the court considering that the property is likely to be used for a terrorist offence.
The test for the overseas freezing order is therefore more strict. It is not enough to show,
"that there is a good arguable case",
but that the court considers that,
"the property is likely to be used"
for terrorist purposes. I therefore believe that the tests for domestic and overseas freezing orders are significantly different. That is curious and needs an explanation.
The difference is more important than that, however. The amendment to Schedule 4 to the Terrorism Act 2000 is intended to give partial effect to the EU framework decision of 2002 on orders freezing property or evidence. That framework decision provides for the mutual recognition of freezing orders if they satisfy certain tests.
To paraphrase Article 2 of the framework decision, one of the grounds on which a domestic or overseas freezing order can be made is that the property to be frozen is property which the competent judicial authority in the issuing state—which would be the UK in the case of a domestic freezing order and a participating country in the case of an overseas freezing order—considers to be a means of an "instrumentality"; the means of carrying out a terrorist offence. The framework decision appears to require the test to be the same both ways.
The test is now directly in line with the formula that is used as a result of the recent amendment for overseas freezing orders. That is plainly a stronger test than that there should be a good arguable case, and the real danger is that if the test for a domestic freezing order is weaker than the test in the framework decision, courts in other participating countries may refuse to enforce domestic freezing orders on the grounds that they may be made in circumstances going beyond those covered by the framework decision and that those decisions are therefore not appropriate for mutual recognition.
That would be a legitimate conclusion for a foreign court to reach and in those circumstances the results would clearly be thoroughly undesirable and contrary to the intention of the framework decision. In my view,
678
the formula which has been adopted by Amendments Nos. 100 and 108 for overseas freezing orders should be applied in the same language to domestic freezing orders. I beg to move.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, this is an interesting amendment, and I am grateful to the noble Lord for tabling it. We have had the debate in part previously. The noble Lord has explained the issue as clearly as he can, although it is complicated. The amendment would require the court to be satisfied that the property to be frozen was likely to be used for the purposes of a listed offence before it would be able to sign a certificate allowing a freezing order to be transmitted abroad. On the current drafting, the court must only be "satisfied" that there is a good arguable case that the property will be so used, which is a slightly lower balance of proof.
The noble Lord, in proposing the amendment, has argued that it will result in a more accurate transposition of the requirement in Article 2(d) of the framework decision that the issuing court "considers" the property in question to be the proceeds or "instrumentalities" of an offence.
We need to interpret "considers" in the context of the framework decision that is intended to allow freezing orders to be made and transmitted at a relatively early stage of the judicial process. Many EU states, including the UK, freeze assets from the start of a terrorist investigation, and the intention is that these orders should be able to be transmitted abroad.
However, at this early stage of the investigation, it is unlikely that the court will ever have sufficient information of value to be able to say absolutely that the assets are likely to be used for an offence. That is why the test for making a freezing order in this country allows an order to be made at the beginning of an investigation or proceedings provided it appears to the court that the frozen property may be forfeited later in the proceedings.
If "considers" is construed as requiring a "likely" test, this could limit the framework decision to freezing assets at what we would see as a late stage of the judicial process at which forfeiture orders are made. That is because this is the only stage at which such a standard of proof is likely to be met—where all the evidence has perhaps been gathered and all the required information is in place. Such a restriction would detract considerably from the effectiveness of the instrument. I am confident that the noble Lord would not want to do that.
The Government believe, in this context, that the requirement that there be a "good arguable case" that the property in question is likely to he used for a listed offence is a legitimate interpretation of the word "considers". It will allow the framework decision to have its intended effect. This amendment would make it much harder to send freezing orders out of the UK to be enforced, and for that reason we must resist it.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I find the noble Lord's answer somewhat peculiar. The framework decision

679
plainly uses the word "considers". Therefore, what the noble Lord appears to be saying is that the domestic freezing order—in order to move matters on quickly—will be made in a way that is not authorised by the framework decision, because the court has not got so far as being able to consider whether it is or is not likely that the property will be used for terrorist purposes.
It also means—I have made this point previously but it has not been answered—that the Terrorism Act 2000. as amended by the Bill, will authorise the making of domestic freezing orders on a standard of evidence that is lower than the standard that the Government appear to require for overseas freezing orders. I find both those aspects very strange.
Having considered the position, I now think that what is required is not a provision in the terms of Amendment No. 99. but one which, instead of using the word "satisfied", uses the word "considers"—which would bring the test for domestic freezing orders entirely into line with those for overseas freezing orders.
In the circumstances, I shall not press the amendment. However, I am strongly inclined to come back at Third Reading with a variation on this proposal which would bring the tests for the two different freezing orders into line with each other. I hope that the Government will use the interval to consider the matter. It seems to me that the arguments in favour of bringing the two tests into line are overwhelming. In the light of the government amendments, I believe that the tests for the overseas freezing order are now correct. The same provision should apply to domestic freezing orders. For the reasons I have expressed, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 100 and 101:
Page 68, line 16, leave out from "Kingdom" to end of line 21 and insert—

"(b) which the appropriate court or authority considers is likely to be used for the purposes of a listed offence or is the proceeds of the commission of such an offence, and

(c) in respect of which an order has been or may be made by a court exercising criminal jurisdiction in the participating country for the forfeiture of the property,"

Page 68, leave out lines 24 to 28 and insert—
"(3) The action which the appropriate court or authority considered would constitute or, as the case may be, constituted the listed offence is action done as an act of terrorism or for the purposes of terrorism."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 102:
Page 69, leave out lines 14 to 19 and insert "send a copy of the overseas freezing order to the High Court and to the Director of Public Prosecutions."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, these amendments will require incoming freezing orders to be dealt with in the High Court, and not, as the schedule currently
680
provides, in any "nominated court". We indicated in Grand Committee that we would bring these amendments forward. I am sure that they will find favour universally in this House.
It is our desire that incoming orders should be dealt with in the High Court, as that body is currently responsible for issuing freezing orders under Schedule 4 to the Terrorism Act and is the only body that will he able to certify a freezing order for transmission abroad under paragraph 11B. These amendments are being introduced to fulfil and satisfy the wishes of your Lordships and to ensure consistency. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendments Nos. 103 to 109:
Page 69, line 20, leave out "nominated"
Page 69, line 22, leave out "nominated"
Page 69, line 28, leave out "nominated court" and insert "High Court"
Page 69, line 33, leave out from "be" to end of line 34 and insert "dealt with"
Page 70, line 2, at end insert "or to the extent that"
Page 70, line 17, at end insert—
"In Part 2 of that Schedule (forfeiture orders: Scotland) after paragraph 25 there is inserted—
"Domestic and overseas freezing orders
25A (1) This paragraph has effect for the purposes of paragraphs 25B to 25G.
(2) The relevant Framework Decision means any Framework Decision of the Council of the European Union which is identified by the Secretary of State by order and is about the execution of orders freezing property or evidence.
(3) A listed offence means—

(a) an offence described in a prescribed provision of the relevant Framework Decision, or

(b) a prescribed offence or an offence of a prescribed description.

(4) An order under sub-paragraph (3)(b) which, for the purposes of paragraph 25D, prescribes an offence or a description of offences may require that the conduct which constitutes the offence or offences would, if it occurred in a part of the United Kingdom, constitute an offence in that part.
(5) Specified information, in relation to a certificate under paragraph 25B or 25D, means—

(a) any information required to be given by a prescribed document annexed to the relevant Framework Decision, or

(b) any prescribed information.

(6) In this paragraph, "prescribed" means prescribed by an order made by the Secretary of State.
(7) A participating country means—

(a) a country other than the United Kingdom which is a member State on a day appointed for the commencement of Schedule 4 to the Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003, and

(b) any other member State designated by an order made by the Secretary of State.

(8) "Country" includes territory.
(9) Section 14(2)(a) applies for the purposes of determining what are the proceeds of the commission of an offence.
Domestic freezing orders: certification
25B ( 1 ) If any of the property to which an application for a restraint order relates is property in a participating country, the applicant may ask the Court of Session to make a certificate under this paragraph.
(2) The Court of Session may make a certificate under this paragraph if—

(a) it makes a restraint order in relation to property in the participating country, and

(b) it is satisfied that there is a good arguable case that the property is likely to be used for the purposes of a listed offence or is the proceeds of the commission of a listed offence.

(3) A certificate under this paragraph is a certificate which—

(a) is made for the purposes of the relevant Framework Decision, and

(b) gives the specified information.

(4) If the Court of Session makes a certificate under this pa ragraph—

(a) the restraint order must provide for notice of the certificate to be given to the person affected by it, and

(b) paragraph 19(2) to (4) applies to the certificate as it applies to the restraint order.

Sending domestic freeing orders
25C (1) If a certificate is made under paragraph 25B, the restraint order and the certificate are to be sent to the Lord Advocate for forwarding to—

(a) a court exercising jurisdiction in the place where the property is situated, or

(b) any authority recognised by the government of the participating country as the appropriate authority for receiving orders of that kind.

(2) The restraint order and the certificate must be accompanied by a forfeiture order, unless the certificate indicates when the court expects a forfeiture order to be sent.
(3) The certificate must include a translation of it into an appropriate language of the participating country (if that language is not English).
(4) The certificate must be signed by or on behalf of the court and must include a statement as to the accuracy of the information given in it.
The signature may be an electronic signature.
(5) If the restraint order and the certificate are not accompanied by a forfeiture order, but a forfeiture order is subsequently made, it is to be sent to the Lord Advocate for forwarding as mentioned in sub-paragraph (1).
Overseas freezing orders
25D (1) Paragraph 25E applies where an overseas freezing order made by an appropriate court or authority in a participating country is received by the Secretary of State from the court or authority which made or confirmed the order.
(2) An overseas freezing order is an order prohibiting dealing with property—

(a) which is in the United Kingdom,

(b) which the appropriate court or authority considers is likely to be used for the purposes of a listed offence or is the proceeds of the commission of such an offence, and

(c) in respect of which an order has been or may be made by a court exercising criminal jurisdiction in the participating country for the forfeiture of the property,

and in respect of which the following requirements of this paragraph are met.
(3) The action which the appropriate court or authority considered would constitute or, as the case may be, constituted the listed offence is action done as an act of terrorism or for the purposes of terrorism.
(4) The order must relate to—

(a) criminal proceedings instituted in the participating country, or

(b) a criminal investigation being carried on there.

(5) The order must be accompanied by a certificate which gives the specified information; but a certificate may be treated as giving any specified information which is not given in it if the Secretary of State has the information in question.
(6) The certificate must—

(a) be signed by or on behalf of the court or authority which made or confirmed the order,

(b) include a statement as to the accuracy of the information given in it,

(c) if it is not in English, include a translation of it into English.

The signature may be an electronic signature.
(7) The order must be accompanied by an order made by a court exercising criminal jurisdiction in that country for the forfeiture of the property, unless the certificate indicates when such an order is expected to be sent.
(8) An appropriate court or authority in a participating country in relation to an overseas freezing order is—

(a) a court exercising criminal jurisdiction in the country,

(b) a prosecuting authority in the country,

(c) any other authority in the country which appears to the Secretary of State to have the function of making such orders.

(9) References in paragraphs 25E to 25G to an overseas freezing order include its accompanying certificate.
Enforcement of overseas freezing orders
25E (1) Where this paragraph applies the Secretary of State must send a copy of the overseas freezing order to the Court of Session and to the Lord Advocate.
(2) The court is to consider the overseas freezing order on its own initiative within a period prescribed by rules of court.
(3) Before giving effect to the overseas freezing order, the court must give the Lord Advocate an opportunity to be heard.
(4) The court may decide not to give effect to the overseas freezing order only if, in its opinion, giving effect to it would be incompatible with any of the Convention rights (within the meaning of the Human Rights Act 1998).
25F The Court of Session may postpone giving effect to an overseas freezing order in respect of any property—

(a) in order to avoid prejudicing a criminal investigation which is taking place in the United Kingdom, or

(b) if, under an order made by a court in criminal proceedings in the United Kingdom, the property may not be dealt with.

25G (1) Where the Court of Session decides to give effect to an overseas freezing order, the Deputy Principal Clerk of Session must—

(a) register the order in the Books of Council and Session,

(b) provide for notice of the registration to be given to any person affected by it.

(2) For the purpose of enforcing an overseas freezing order registered in the Books of Council and Session, the order is to have effect as if it were an order made by the Court of Session.
(3) Paragraphs 20 and 21 apply to an overseas freezing order registered in the Books of Council and Session as they apply to a restraint order under paragraph 18.
(4) The Court of Session may cancel the registration of the order, or vary the property to which the order applies, on an application by the Lord Advocate or any other person affected by it, if or to the extent that—

(a) the court is of the opinion mentioned in paragraph 25E(4), or

683

(b) the court is of the opinion that the order has ceased to have effect in the participating country.

(5) Her Majesty may by Order in Council make further provision for the enforcement in Scotland of registered overseas freezing orders.
(6) An Order in Council under this paragraph—

(a) may make different provision for different cases,

(b) is not to be made unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament."

In paragraph 28 of that Schedule (enforcement of orders made in designated countries), in sub-paragraph (2), after the second "order" there is inserted "(other than an overseas freezing order within the meaning of paragraph 25D)".
In Part 3 of that Schedule (forfeiture orders: Northern Ireland) after paragraph 41 there is inserted—
"Domestic and overseas freezing orders
41A (1) This paragraph has effect for the purposes of paragraphs 41B to 41G.
(2) The relevant Framework Decision means any Framework Decision of the Council of the European Union which is identified by the Secretary of State by order and is about the execution of orders freezing property or evidence.
(3) A listed offence means—

(a) an offence described in a prescribed provision of the relevant Framework Decision, or

(b) a prescribed offence or an offence of a prescribed description.

(4) An order under sub-paragraph (3)(b) which, for the purposes of paragraph 41D, prescribes an offence or a description of offences may require that the conduct which constitutes the offence or offences would, if it occurred in a part of the United Kingdom, constitute an offence in that part.
(5) Specified information, in relation to a certificate under paragraph 41B or 41D, means—

(a) any information required to he given by a prescribed document annexed to the relevant Framework Decision, or

(b) any prescribed information.

(6) In this paragraph, "prescribed" means prescribed by an order made by the Secretary of State.
(7) A participating country means—

(a) a country other than the United Kingdom which is a member State on a day appointed for the commencement of Schedule 4 to the Crime (International Co-operation) Act 2003, and

(b) any other member State designated by an order made by the Secretary of State.

(8) "Country" includes territory.
(9) Section 14(2)(a) applies for the purposes of determining what are the proceeds of the commission of an offence.
Domestic freezing orders: certification
41B (1) If any of the property to which an application for a restraint order relates is property in a participating country, the applicant may ask the High Court to make a certificate under This paragraph.
(2) The High Court may make a certificate under this paragraph if—

(a) it makes a restraint order in relation to property in the participating country, and

(b) it is satisfied that there is a good arguable case that the property is likely to be used for the purposes of a listed offence or is the proceeds of the commission of a listed offence.

(3) A certificate under this paragraph is a certificate which—

(a) is made for the purposes of the relevant Framework Decision, and

(b) gives the specified information.

(4) If the High Court makes a certificate under this paragraph—

(a) the restraint order must provide for notice of the certificate to be given to the person affected by it, and

(b) paragraph 34(2) to (4) applies to the certificate as it apples to the restraint order.

Sending domestic freezing orders
41C (1) If a certificate is made under paragraph 41 B, the restraint order and the certificate are to be sent to the Secretary of State for forwarding to—

(a) a court exercising jurisdiction in the place where the property is situated, or

(b) any authority recognised by the government of the participating country as the appropriate authority for receiving orders of that kind.

(2) The restraint order and the certificate must be accompanied by a forfeiture order, unless the certificate indicates when the court expects a forfeiture order to be sent.
(3) The certificate must include a translation of it into an appropriate language of the participating country (if that language is not English).
(4) The certificate must be signed by or on behalf of the court and must include a statement as to the accuracy of the information given in it.
The signature may be an electronic signature.
(5) If the restraint order and the certificate are not accompanied by a forfeiture order, but a forfeiture order is subsequently made, it is to be sent to the Secretary of State for forwarding as mentioned in sub-paragraph (1).
Overseas freezing orders
41D (1) Paragraph 41E applies where an overseas freezing order made by an appropriate court or authority in a participating country is received by the Secretary of State from the court or authority which made or confirmed the order.
(2) An overseas freezing order is an order prohibiting dealing with property—

(a) which is in the United Kingdom,

(b) which the appropriate court or authority considers is likely to be used for the purposes of a listed offence or is the proceeds of the commission of such an offence, and

(c) in respect of which an order has been or may be made by a court exercising criminal jurisdiction in the participating country for the forfeiture of' the property,

and in respect of which the following requirements of this paragraph are met.
(3) The action which the appropriate court or authority considered would constitute or, as the case may be, constituted the listed offence is action done as an act of terrorism or for the purposes of terrorism.
(4) The order must relate to—

(a) criminal proceedings instituted in the participating country, or

(b) a criminal investigation being carried on there.

(5) The order must be accompanied by a certificate which gives the specified information; but a certificate may be treated as giving any specified information which is not given in it if the Secretary of State has the information in question.
(6) The certificate must—

(a) be signed by or on behalf of the court or authority which made or confirmed the order,

(b) include a statement as to the accuracy of the information given in it,

685

(c) it is not in English, include a translation of it into English.

The signature may be an electronic signature.
(7) The order must be accompanied by an order made by a court exercising criminal jurisdiction in that country for the forfeiture of the property, unless the certificate indicates when such an order is expected to be sent.
(8) An appropriate court or authority in a participating country in relation to an overseas freezing order is—

(a) a court exercising criminal jurisdiction in the country,

(b) a prosecuting authority in the country,

(c) any other authority in the country which appears to the Secretary of State to have the function of making such orders.

(9) References in paragraphs 41E to 41G to an overseas freezing order include its accompanying certificate.
Enforcement of overseas freezing orders
41 E (1) Where this paragraph applies the Secretary of State must send a copy of the overseas freezing order to the High Court and to the Director of Public Prosecutions for Northern Ireland.
(2) The court is to consider the overseas freezing order on its own initiative within a period prescribed by rules of court.
(3) Before giving effect to the overseas freezing order, the court must give the Director an opportunity to be heard.
(4) The court may decide not to give effect to the overseas freezing order only if, in its opinion, giving effect to it would be incompatible with any of the Convention rights (within the meaning of the Human Rights Act 1998).
41F The High Court may postpone giving effect to an overseas freezing order in respect of any property—

(a) in order to avoid prejudicing a criminal investigation which is taking place in the United Kingdom, or

(b) if. under an order made by a court in criminal proceedings in the United Kingdom, the property may not be dealt with.

41G (1) Where the High Court decides to give effect to an overseas freezing order, it must—

(a) register the order in that court,

(b) provide for notice of the registration to be given to any person affected by it.

(2) For the purpose of enforcing an overseas freezing order registered in the High Court. the order is to have effect as if it were an order made by that court.
(3) Paragraph 35 applies to an overseas freezing order registered in the High Court as it applies to a restraint order under paragraph 33.
(4) The High Court may cancel the registration of the order, or vary the property to which the order applies, on an application by the Director of Public Prosecution for Northern Ireland or any other person affected by it, if or to the extent that—

(a) the court is of the opinion mentioned in paragraph 41E(4), or

(b) the court is of the opinion that the order has ceased to have effect in the participating country.

(5) Her Majesty may by Order in Council make further provision for the enforcement in Northern Ireland of registered overseas freezing orders.
(6) An Order in Council under this paragraph

(a) may make different provision for different cases,

(b) is not to be made unless a draft of it has been laid before and approved by resolution of each House of Parliament."

In paragraph 44 of that Schedule (enforcement of orders made in designated countries), in sub-paragraph (2), after the second "order" there is inserted "(other than an overseas freezing order within the meaning of paragraph 41D)"."
Page 70, line 18, leave out paragraph 5 and insert—
"In Part 4 of that Schedule (insolvency), in paragraph 45, in paragraph (c) of the definition of "restraint order", for the words from "external" to "virtue" there is substituted "order which is enforceable in England and Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland by virtue of paragraph 11G, 25G or 41G or"."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 92 [Supplementary and consequential provision]:
[Amendment No. 110 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 111:
Page 61, line 4, at end insert—
"(2A) Before making an order under subsection (1), the Secretary of State shall consult the Scottish Ministers.
(2B) Before making an order under subsection (1) the Scottish Ministers shall consult the Secretary of State."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 112.
I make it clear immediately that these amendments are merely a device. I do not intend to press them. They do not seek to provide a solution to a problem caused by devolution; their purpose is simply to ask the Government to explain, with regard to Scotland, the position that will obtain when statutory instruments are made to give effect to the supplementary and consequential provisions that are part of Clause 92.
The Bill makes it look as though different provisions could be made for Scotland than for the rest of the UK. That seems inadvisable, to say the least. The amendments are simply a device to ask the Government to put on the record what they consider would be the proper approach to these matters. I beg to move.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Anelay is quite right to raise this issue. These could be very wide-ranging orders. This is a Henry VIII clause, and we could have wide-ranging orders within the competence of the Scots Parliament only or the Westminster Parliament for England, Wales and Northern Ireland only. It is important to clarify the position. Surely there should be consultation, whatever these orders are, between the two legal jurisdictions. I hope the Government can clarify that. It is no good simply saying that there will be. Conflicting orders could be made for some reason which would endanger the content of the Bill.
Lord Renton: My Lords, it is important that we do not have a Henry VIII clause here. The Bill is unusual; it breaks new ground and is of international as well as national importance. We need to see how it operates after a time. So, I hope that the Minister will observe what my noble friends have said.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I am happy to try to give the explanation that the noble Baronesses, Lady Anelay and Lady Carnegy, have sought. I hope that in the process I will also satisfy the noble Lord, Lord Renton.

687
Amendment No. 111 would ensure that the Secretary of State and Scottish Ministers will confer before making any order to amend primary legislation or make secondary legislation which makes supplementary or consequential provision for the purpose of bringing the Bill into full effect. I presume the intended purpose of the amendment is to ensure that the legislation will be applied consistently on both sides of the border.
Where matters of the Bill fall within the competence of the Scottish Parliament, it is of course for Scottish Ministers to legislate. There is no requirement in the Bill for consultation to take place before doing so, but in practice Westminster departments have close relations with the relevant department of the Scottish Executive, and consultation is extensive. As the measures in the Bill will work most effectively if there is a consistency of approach north and south of the border, it is highly likely that consultation will take place on the implementation of the Bill. Indeed, I am happy to commit my officials to consulting with their counterparts in the Scottish Executive. I hope that this will give the reassurances sought.
Amendment No. 112 seeks to extend the types of order that may be made under the power granted in subsection (1). The amendment actually appears to have as its effect an extension of the types of incidental provisions that may be made under this clause, although I am not sure whether this is the intended purpose.
During our previous debate on this clause in Committee, the Government tabled amendments which now form subsections (5) to (8), so that any amendments to Acts of Parliament will be subject to affirmative procedure. although amendments to secondary legislation will still be by negative procedure. These amendments were warmly welcomed by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. who recommended that they be tabled, and the noble Lords who attended Committee.
We had detailed discussions about the necessity of such clauses and what type of amendments they would be used to make. As I explained then, the Delegated Powers Committee agrees that there are certain cases where this type of clause is justified, particularly where it would be difficult to anticipate the full extent of amendments during the passage of a Bill. As I am sure we all agree, the Bill is highly complex and amends a substantial amount of previous legislation. Although every effort has been made to ensure that all consequential provisions have been accounted for, it is possible that others may arise, particularly in relation to the highly technical road traffic provisions of Part 3.
Under the clause, the appropriate Ministers are granted the power to make supplementary or consequential changes which add to, replace or omit any part of an Act of Parliament or, as the case may be, an Act of the Scottish Parliament. The wording reflects that used in Section 140 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002. The Government consider that the current drafting of the clause would cover circumstances where orders would "apply in modification" parts of
688
other Acts of Parliament for the purpose of making supplementary or consequential provisions to give full effect to the Bill. The Government therefore do not consider that the amendment is necessary, as I hope I have explained to the satisfaction of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, when he speaks to Amendment No. 111, he says he will give an assurance that Ministers will consult and agree. How can he do that? There will be an election to the Scots Parliament shortly. A quite different Administration may emerge then. How can the Minister be sure that there will be such consultation or agreement?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I carefully sought to say that I could give a commitment on behalf of the United Kingdom Government that our officials would consult with the Scottish Executive. For very proper reasons, I could not commit the Scottish officials to consult with us for a point of delegation. I clearly have not touched on the point that the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, is getting at; I am sure she will be glad to enlighten me further.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I am sorry to take up the time of the House, and I hope I have its leave. It may not be the same Government at Westminster. These orders could be made to conflict and ruin the Bill if there was no compulsory consultation between the two. The Minister is being a little too optimistic, but we shall leave the matter for the moment.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I repeat that, whatever the political composition of the Scottish Executive, this Government will consult with their officials over these measures.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply and for putting it clearly on the record that he will commit his officials to consulting with their counterparts. However, my noble friend Lady Carnegy has made an important point. We will also have to consider how this provision operates in the future in order to achieve the consistent application of these provisions across Great Britain in Scotland, England and Wales.
The Minister referred to the second amendment which I put down as a taster for the sunset clause. There is a subtle irony that we are debating Henry VIII powers with regard to Scotland when Henry VIII was not king of Scotland. No doubt my noble friend Lady Carnegy will be able to find another nickname for these clauses to make them more appropriate to Scotland. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 112 not moved.]
Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 113:
Page 61, line 23, at end insert—
"() This section shall cease to have effect at the end of three years beginning with the date on which it comes into force."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall also speak to Amendment No. 114. These are the sunset clauses for the Henry VIII powers of Clause 92 to which the Minister referred in his last speech. I tabled both amendments to give the House the opportunity to debate the principle of which alternative is preferable. Let me make it clear that I think that one of them should be. As the Minister has just said, Clause 92 is an enabling clause giving the Government the opportunity to amend or repeal primary legislation by statutory instrument with or without further parliamentary scrutiny.
The House debated these clauses recently as a result of the helpful report from the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. The Committee found that there could be circumstances in which Henry VIII clauses were appropriate per se.There might be Bills in which subsequent changes were about to take place that one could not necessarily foresee and it was necessary to have some form of Henry VIII clause.
In that debate, the Committee's chairman, the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, pointed out that any debate on those matters,
"goes right to the heart of the key constitutional question of the limits of executive power, and of the ability as well as the duty of Parliament to prevent the unchecked extension of these limits".—[Official Report, 14/1/03; col. 165.].
As well as speaking as chairman of the committee, the noble Lord made it clear that he made some comments in a private capacity. In that capacity, he said, at col. 169, that such clauses should be subject to a sunset provision. I agree with him. That is why I have tabled these two alternative sunset amendments.
The first is the blunt weapon, which is more commonly used. It would give Clause 92 just three years of life. At the end of that period, the Government would have to revive it if they were in what one would think was the unlikely position of still not having got their act together over introducing any necessary supplementary and consequential provisions.
The second amendment—Amendment No. 114—is a gentler device whereby, after three years, the clause would expire unless the Government brought forward an affirmative statutory instrument to keep it going. That would give proper parliamentary scrutiny of the process by which the Government had succeeded or failed to implement any necessary supplementary and consequential provisions.
I am convinced that the sunset procedure would provide good practice for Henry VIII clauses, such as Clause 92. It would ensure that the Government got their act together and introduced any necessary amendments as soon as possible. Three years seems long enough for the Government to make decisions about amendments that are consequential or supplementary to the Bill. If they were still unable to
690
make up their mind at that stage and believed that further amendments might still be necessary, Amendment No. 114 would give Parliament a vital scrutiny role to ensure that the original legislation was not redirected inappropriately. It would give Parliament the opportunity, after scrutiny, to allow Clause 92 to continue its life.
Finally, a sunset clause would discourage hasty drafting in the first place. That is essential. As ever, I do not blame those who draft legislation. It is their political masters who cause the urgency and then sometimes change their minds at the last minute on what they hope to achieve with the legislation. I appreciate that those doing the drafting merely respond to the exigencies of the political world.
In Committee I moved a much tougher sunset clause that would have allowed for only one year before the axe came down on Clause 92. That was a probing amendment—as it had to be, because one cannot vote in Grand Committee—to tease out the Government's response. I noted with interest that the Minister, at col. GC39, did not reject out of hand the principle of a sunset clause. He said he would consider the points made, without signalling that there would necessarily be a meeting of minds on sunset clauses. I hope that in its further consideration of these matters, the Home Office has concluded that it would be appropriate to adopt a sunset provision on Clause 92. Of course I will perfectly well understand if today the Government are prepared to dip their toes gently in the water of Amendment No. 114, rather than going the whole way with Amendment No. 113. I beg to move.
8 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I shall speak briefly to the amendment. The Scottish equivalent to a Henry VIII clause might be a Macbeth clause. I also note that Amendment No. 114 is not quite as drastic as I originally thought. As drafted, the sunset provision appears to apply not just to the Henry VIII clause, but to the whole Act. I am glad to know that it applies only to the Henry VIII clause.
A sunset provision for Henry VIII clauses is an interesting idea that is worth considering. In a written Answer to me last week, the noble and learned Lord the Leader of the House listed the occasions on which Henry VIII clauses relating to transitional and consequential provisions have been used in certain Acts. Those powers have been used much more extensively than I anticipated and well past the three-year period in some cases. That should be referred to the Delegated Powers Committee for further study rather than introducing it as part of a Bill at this stage, before the implications have been fully thought through. A time limit on this kind of Henry VIII clause is worth considering, but I do not support it on this occasion.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, invites us to take the bait of what she said was the less severe Amendment No. 114 if we could not take the bait of Amendment No. 113. I am afraid that

691
we fell into the same trap as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and took Amendment No. 114 at its face value. It would make the whole Act fall. That has been our mindset in drawing up our response. The noble Baroness will hear our views on why that is a bad idea. We shall reflect further on what she spoke to—without any hint of optimism—rather than the amendment as tabled.
Amendment No. 113 would sunset the power in Clause 92—to make incidental and consequential provisions arising from the Bill—after three years. We were not altogether surprised that the amendment was tabled, following discussions in Committee, when some support was expressed for such a provision. During the debate on the special report of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Dahrendorf, expressed a strong preference in principle for sunset provisions, as the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, mentioned. The purpose behind such a provision would be to place further restraints on the seemingly wide powers that the clause grants to amend legislation. However, as we have debated previously, those powers will be subject to thorough scrutiny and any order to amend Acts of Parliament would be subject to affirmative resolution, while any order to amend secondary legislation would be subject to negative resolution.
Clause 92 concerns only supplementary and consequential provision. It is not a power to carry out a wholesale rewrite of the Bill. The Government have no intention of trying to use it to make any provision not within the scope of the clause. To try to do so would be ultra vires and unlawful. The power has sufficient checks attached to ensure that it is appropriately used. The further check provided by a sunset clause is not necessary.
The amendment would set an unhelpful precedent. If every Bill were to include a sunset clause, the necessary reviews would place an unacceptably heavy demand on parliamentary time. The Government would prefer to review the recommendations of the Delegated Powers Committee case by case. We will be open to suggestion on the inclusion of sunset clauses where the committee thinks appropriate. The committee has proved itself to be a wise counsellor for the House on these matters, and I believe that we should continue to rely on its wisdom in the future.
In the case of this Bill, the committee did not conclude that a sunset provision would be appropriate, and the Government see no reason to think otherwise. I would reinforce that by drawing attention to the Bill's complexity, on which we have commented on many occasions, and which is demonstrated by Schedule 4, which runs to 11 pages. The amendments regarding road traffic offences also are extremely technical and complex. It would be marvellous if we were certain that, in three years, we would have identified every glitch and error. However, we would be foolish to think that we would be able to do that.
692
In our view, Amendment No. 114 goes even further, by placing a three-year expiry date on the entire Bill. In effect, that would instigate a review procedure of the Act three years after it has come into force. Reference has been made to the acknowledgement by my noble and learned friend Lord Williams of Mostyn that sunset clauses can be a useful device which are appropriate in some legislation. I think that he was referring specifically to the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill and to 50:50 recruitment in the post-Patten proposals. Such measures to strike a balance between the different communities in Northern Ireland are clearly exceptional, and one very much hopes that they will not be needed in future. This Bill is different. We are saying that we think that there will be occasions when consequential amendments are necessary to deal with complex drafting inadequacies which we have identified in the Bill.
I am happy to assure the House that we will not let the legislation drift. I do not believe that there is a need for a statutory review process. As noble Lords are aware, large sections of the Bill build on and replace the Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990. In Committee, when we were discussing the operation of that Act, various noble Lords indicted that perhaps that Act itself represents a review of the earlier legislation.
As this Act is implemented, the Government, the UK Central Authority arid other bodies involved in the direct implementation of the provisions will be looking closely at the effectiveness of the legislation. So these provisions will not be allowed to drift, but will be reviewed as they are put into practice.
I cannot accept that legislating for just three years ahead is an efficient way to legislate or an efficient use of parliamentary time. I appreciate, however, that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, has said that the amendment does not express quite what she had intended to say. We will undoubtedly have opportunities between now and Third Reading to reflect on what she did mean. I hope that I have explained the broad thrust of the Government's position.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, the Minister has anticipated what I was going to say in some respects but not in others. I shall certainly reflect on the matter between now and Third Reading. I shall not press the amendments today. At that stage, however, I shall return to the issue of sunset clauses and the principle of having the "softer", three-year amendment in relation just to Clause 92. Today, I simply wanted to raise a debate on the principle of sunset clauses. The Minister anticipated that I might deploy an argument based on the words used by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn; but I have not done so. It was obvious that those advising the Minister thought that I might rerun the arguments I used in Grand Committee. I deliberated on doing that, but realised that that was not my strongest point. I realised that I have much better arrows in my quiver and was able to leave aside that argument.

693
The Minister made one point to which I must refer. The Government have taken into consideration the fact that these matters shall be decided on a case-by-case basis by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee. We value enormously the work done by that committee, and we pay very close attention to every word in its reports. Ultimately, however, it is for the House to decide. There are occasions, very few in number, when the committee does not comment on something to which we object, and vice versa. So although the Minister is quite right that the committee should consider these matters further—I think that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, was right that these matters should be referred to the committee—I do not think that that is the only possible course of action. We will think about doing something about that at Third Reading. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 114 not moved.]
Clause 94 [Extent]:
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 115:
Page 61, line 36, at end insert—
"() Her Majesty may, by Order in Council, direct that any provision of this Act shall extend, with such exceptions, adaptations and modifications, if any, as may be specified in the Order, to any of the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the last amendment on the Marshalled List and I shall be as quick as I can.
This amendment was moved in Grand Committee by my noble friend Lord Wallace of Saltaire. Its purpose is to authorise the Government, by Order in Council, to ensure that any part of the Bill may be extended in its operation to the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man.
It is clear that some parts of the Bill are of no concern to mainland United Kingdom, such as Part 3 on the mutual recognition of driving disqualifications. However, other parts are of very considerable concern—such as the provisions about freezing orders, under Chapter 2 of Part 1, and in particular the provisions relating to financial information under Chapter 4 of Part I. It is clearly important that the islands should be as active in defeating money laundering and the financing of terrorism and international crime as the United Kingdom itself because of the status of the islands as offshore financial centres of real international importance. It is, therefore, desirable that steps should be taken to apply the relevant provisions of the Bill, or equivalent provisions, to the islands.
Of course, the best course would be for the islands to enact their own legislation. I hope, indeed, that that will happen. But the United Kingdom Government retain residual authority to advise the Queen to make an Order in Council, having authority in the islands. That power carries great influence. A great deal of pressure can be put upon the islands.
Do the Government expect that the authorities in the islands will take steps to adopt legislation to the same effect as the relevant provisions of the Bill, so far as it is possible for them to do so? Will the Government use their influence and, if necessary, their powers to ensure that that happens? I beg to move.
8.15 p.m.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, I am glad to respond to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, or rather to the questions behind it, as fully as I can, although in many cases they touch on issues of constitutional law which we do not have the competence to override, as I shall explain.
The amendment replicates an amendment that was tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, in Committee. It appears that we have not been able to satisfy him adequately.
The noble Lord has previously expressed his concern that clauses of this nature appear in some Bills but not others and is keen to know why. As we explained, a provision such as the amendment suggests can be included in UK legislation only after consultation with, and with the consent of, the islands. It cannot be done unilaterally, as the amendment would require.
As my noble friend Lord Bassam explained previously, unlike purely domestic legislation, it is not appropriate to include the standard extension wording where the Bill is enacting our EU obligations. Unlike standard Community business, where territorial extent is defined by the treaty, Third Pillar co-operation, which is implemented by this Bill, has no specific territorial application. The inclusion of Gibraltar and the islands in an instrument is considered with our European partners at the time it is negotiated and their inclusion can then be specified in the instrument where this is agreed. As the islands have chosen not to participate in the measures covered by this Bill, we cannot use the Bill to change that situation.
The motivation behind this amendment is the wish to ensure that the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man do not become havens for criminal finance and money laundering. The offshore banking industry thrives in those islands. As we explained previously, the UK Government have been active in promoting good practice in this area, setting up the Edwards Review in 1998 and following up its recommendations in co-operation with the islands. The Edwards report praised the islands' systems to combat money laundering in all the islands, and its detailed recommendations for improvements have largely been implemented.
The authorities are keen to remain compliant not only with international standards but also with international best practice. While they are not obliged to implement the EU Money Laundering Directive, in practice they have introduced many of the provisions of the 1991 directive and have gone further in some respects. We shall be introducing regulations to implement the 2001 directive later this year. We

695
understand that the authorities in the Channel Islands have indicated that once we have done so they will consider introducing similar provisions where they do not already exist, as well as the money laundering provisions (Part 7) of the Proceeds of Crime Act. The same arguments apply in the case of the Isle of Man. Although at present the islands will not be able to participate in specific requests under the protocol, tight regulation of the financial sector ensures that financial criminality is not allowed to flourish.
When the UK was applying to participate in the Schengen convention, the islands were consulted about whether or not they wished to participate. In the event, it was not possible to agree a common level of participation between the islands and it was felt that widely ranging degrees of participation would serve only to create more confusion.
The Crown Dependencies were not consulted about the inclusion of a permissive extent clause in this Bill as they customarily enact their own laws in the field of criminal justice. As the noble Lord is aware, they have their own separate legal and judicial systems. It is exceptional these days for UK legislation to be capable of extension to the Crown Dependencies save in a few areas such as immigration. As we discussed before, a copy of this Bill will be sent to the islands and it will be for them to decide whether there is anything in it which
696
they might wish to copy in their own legislation, as they have done in the past with earlier UK criminal justice legislation.
As my noble friend Lord Bassam informed the noble Lord during the course of our previous debate on the matter, the responsibility for the constitutional arrangements of the Channel Islands has now passed to the Lord Chancellor's Department. I understand that the noble Lord has written to the Lord Chancellor seeking a briefing meeting with officials in his department to discuss the application of UK legislation to the Crown Dependencies. I have seen the Lord Chancellor's letter of reply to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, offering a meeting and indicating the name of the head of the constitutional policy division, who is commended as an expert in these matters. I very much hope that the offer of a meeting and a discussion will be useful to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace. I hope that I have explained why we cannot accept the amendment but that I have opened up an avenue of discussion with the Lord Chancellor's Department.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his full and helpful reply. I think that the questions have been answered as far as possible, and I can safely say that the amendment will not come back on Third Reading. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at twenty minutes past eight o'clock.

  FCO Spring Supplementary Estimates
  FCO Spring Supplementary Estimates
  Bermuda
  Bermuda
  Aisha Megrahi
  Aisha Megrahi
  Asylum Seekers: Government Policy
  Asylum Seekers: Government Policy
  Oakington Asylum Centre
  Oakington Asylum Centre
  Asylum Seekers from Iraq
  Asylum Seekers from Iraq
  Judicial Appointments
  Judicial Appointments
  Iraq: Costs to UK of Military Intervention
  Iraq: Costs to UK of Military Intervention
  Families with Children: Government Policy
  Families with Children: Government Policy
  Uzbekistan
  Uzbekistan
  Weapons of Mass Destruction
  Weapons of Mass Destruction
  Iraq: Consequences of Military Action
  Iraq: Consequences of Military Action
  Iraq: Democracy and Human Rights
  Iraq: Democracy and Human Rights
  Belarus
  Belarus
  Cyprus
  Cyprus
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
  Flue Gas Desulphurisation Plants
  Flue Gas Desulphurisation Plants
  Export Certificates for Animal Health Products
  Export Certificates for Animal Health Products
  Green Claims Code
  Green Claims Code
  NHS Professionals
  NHS Professionals
  Connswater River
  Connswater River
  North/South Implementation Bodies
  North/South Implementation Bodies
  Websites
  Websites
  Capita Group: Cabinet Office Contracts
  Capita Group: Cabinet Office Contracts
  Cabinet Office Spring Supplementary Estimates
  Cabinet Office Spring Supplementary Estimates